Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

New Deal

Sir Peter Emery: What steps he will take to increase the proportion of the resources available under the new deal scheme allocated to the long-term unemployed who are over 25 years old. [40033]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Last year we allocated £350 million from the windfall tax to be spent in the current financial year. On 17 March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer allocated a further £100 million to pilot 70,000 places from November, based on the same programme as the new deal for the under-25s.

Sir Peter Emery: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but it is pure obfuscation. The unemployment figures show that 118,000 under-25s are unemployed compared with 216,000 elderly people who have been unemployed for over two years and 349,000 elderly people who have been unemployed for one year. However, under the new deal, about £2,600 million is being spent on the young unemployed but only £450 million over four years is being spent on the elderly. Somebody has to speak up for the elderly. It is much more difficult for them to get jobs than it is for younger people.

Mr. Blunkett: As someone who has reached the age of 50, I think that, by anybody's standards, it is pushing it a bit to call the over-25s elderly. What we are providing for the new deal is in addition to the money already being allocated for the Employment Service, training and enterprise and employment zone programmes, which this year will amount to £450 million. So, it is in addition to the resources being allocated for employment measures and adult training measures.
There is a grave misunderstanding among Conservative Members about the nature of the new deal. The new deal is different because it offers a gateway and provides the advice, counselling, education and social support necessary to ensure that when offers of work are in place, the young people have the necessary social and educational skills to take them up and hold on to them. It

is an entirely different programme from simply providing make-work schemes, which is what young people have been used to in the past.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I say that I sincerely hope that the young and middle-aged long-term unemployed in my constituency benefit directly from the decision announced today by the Taiwanese electronics firm, Foxteq, to set up a plant in Renfrew—unfortunately not in Inverclyde—which will create 560 new jobs? Locate in Scotland and the Scottish Office deserve our commendation for that. That welcome news emphasises the need to train long-term unemployed people in information technology skills. That is particularly important when those long-term unemployed people were employed hitherto in traditional industries.

Mr. Blunkett: I welcome that news and I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a helpful and positive step forward. In addition to the resources I mentioned a moment ago, a further £100 million has been allocated for skills support, £40 million of which was specific to information technology and the development of centres of excellence across the country. If we can put those in place, we can meet the challenge of not merely the year ahead but of the new century, when people will require new skills, new investment and a different type of work environment.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State agree that the main judgment on whether the new deal is a success is whether it reduces long-term unemployment for both the young and the old?

Mr. Blunkett: The new deal will be judged by the objectives we have set out, which means preparing people for the world of work, enabling them to take the jobs available and ensuring that they develop the social and educational skills to enable them to deal with a world of insecurity. The overall objective of the Department and the Government is to do exactly the reverse of what the previous Government achieved. We want to reduce the number of long-term unemployed, not to revel in it, which Conservative Members seem to do every time that we have Education and Employment questions.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend and the Government are particularly concerned about providing good employment opportunities for the disabled. Will my right hon. Friend spell out what the new deal is doing to help unemployed disabled people get into good employment, not second-class jobs?

Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased that we have been able to develop 12 new pilot programmes specifically for people with disabilities, from which they will be able to benefit, in addition to the new deal proposals. Disabled people are entitled to join those specific pilot programmes without undergoing a six-month wait. The programmes will enable us to discover what works best, and to build on the experience of the access to work programme. They will also ensure that work-based experience is tailored to the needs of the disabled person, and that support is available for both the employer and the employee, to ensure and secure long-term employment.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: What representations he has received about operational difficulties in the administration of the jobseeker's allowance. [40034]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Government have received a number of representations from individuals and organisations on a variety of jobseeker's allowance-related operational issues. We welcome comments from organisations, members of the public and staff.

Mr. Kirkwood: I pay tribute to front-line staff in both the Department for Education and Employment and the Benefits Agency who administer the jobseeker's allowance. Does the Minister accept that their job is made much more difficult by the split between data processing and collection—which is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment—and benefit payment, which is undertaken by the Benefits Agency? Does he agree that the split is inefficient, and makes the situation more difficult for both staff and customers? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will very carefully examine the matter, and not only listen to the pointy-heads in his own policy department, but talk to the people who pay the benefit about whether one Department or the other—I am agnostic about which—takes full responsibility for the benefit?

Mr. Howarth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern that the system should be as manageable as possible—above all for jobseekers, but also for the staff who serve them. I agree that the success that the staff of both the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service have made of jointly administering the JSA is a tribute to their commitment to public service. Ernst and Young has conducted an independent review and reported that, at local level, working relations between the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency are largely very good. There are procedures for the two agencies to resolve any operational difficulties that may arise locally. However, I certainly do not dismiss the hon. Gentleman's comments and will re-examine the matter afresh.

Student Fees

Mr. Phil Willis: What plans he has to allow students attending English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities on approved undergraduate courses of more than three years' duration to be exempt from paying fees in the fourth year. [40035]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Under our planned funding arrangements, financial support for students' fees will be dependent on income. Full-time undergraduates who come from lower-income families in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be exempt from paying fees in the fourth year at any United Kingdom university.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful for that response. However, does the Minister agree that the Government's haste in

requiring students to pay tuition fees from this year has caused a financial and bureaucratic nightmare for universities offering courses of more than three years' duration, which supply courses to 90,000 students? What justification can he give for exempting medical students in year five of a course, but not in year four, or for exempting from fees postgraduate certificate of education students who will work primarily in secondary education, but not students studying for a four-year honours degree?
What justification can there be for providing absolutely no fee exemption for students studying architecture on a six-year course? Is it not right that all students should be treated equitably?

Dr. Howells: No, I do not believe that it is. Moreover, the nightmare described by the hon. Gentleman has not yet been communicated to us. Not one university has told us that it is suffering from a bureaucratic nightmare. I suspect that the nightmare is entirely in the minds of Liberal Democrat Members.

Ms Sally Keeble: As student fees have increased people's interest in university degrees, will my hon. Friend say whether there was any truth in the Financial Times article stating that the Government may change the criteria that colleges of higher education must meet to attain university status? Nene college, in my constituency, is extremely interested in getting university status and would like to know whether there has been any change in the Government's thinking on the matter.

Dr. Howells: No. It is a subject that we are looking at carefully. At present, we have no plans to change the way in which the criteria are judged and the title "university" is awarded to colleges.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: In the nine months since the policy was announced last summer, has the Minister thought of a single reason of principle why students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be uniquely targeted to pay higher fees to Scottish universities than students from anywhere else in the European Union? Can he give me one single reason of principle to justify the Government's policy? In nine months, has the Minister been able to think of one?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Remind him about the poll tax.

Dr. Howells: I could remind the right hon. Gentleman about the poll tax, but instead I shall attempt to answer his question. As he knows, education in Scotland is very different from that in England.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why?

Dr. Howells: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why. If he does not know, perhaps he should try reading sometimes. Scottish students study for the equivalent of A-levels for one year in Scotland instead of for two years in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe that Scottish universities should recognise that—many of them do—and allow students to join courses in the second year if they have the proper qualifications to do so.

Child Care

Miss Anne Begg: What plans he has to involve employers in the development of the national child care strategy. [40036]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We very much agree that contributions from employers can make a substantial difference to the provision of child care. In two or three weeks' time we shall issue a Green Paper, which will be mirrored in Scotland, setting out the detail of our proposals, building on the announcements that have been made on expenditure over the next five years in respect of the British Isles and underpinning our commitment to a collaborative approach to providing affordable, high-quality child care in every neighbourhood in the United Kingdom.

Miss Begg: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Last month, I visited a nursery in my constituency. As it is situated on the outskirts of a large industrial estate in Aberdeen, it depends for its clientele on the workers on that estate, particularly those who work for the oil companies. The people running the nursery felt that if only they could tap into the employers' good will and get some support from them, they could offer the child care that is so desperately needed by the work force at a much more affordable rate. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that employers are aware that affordable child care not only benefits parents in that it allows them to return to work, but is good business as a vibrant business requires a happy work force in which employees feel that their children are being well cared for.

Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. Helping to balance family and work life contributes to our economy and the well-being of companies. The work that has been done by the Bank of Ireland, for example, has illustrated graphically the increased productivity, the retention of staff and the improvement in morale that can be achieved. I congratulate that company and public service organisations such as the Thanet healthcare NHS trust, which has made a specific effort to provide flexible, out-of-hours and daytime child care covering holidays and evenings in a way that shows great imagination and has helped to improve the quality and delivery of the service that it provides to the public.

Mr. Don Foster: May I welcome the Government's commitment to integrating education and child care? I welcome many of their new initiatives, such as out-of-school clubs, summer schools and improvements in the child care disregard. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the Government will never be considered to be a green Government just by the constant recycling of initiatives, claiming each time that they are new? In particular, does he accept that his announcement yesterday, which he claimed was a new one, of an additional £600 million, was nothing of the sort? The local education authorities already knew about the money and had already bid for it. More importantly, does he accept that the Under-Secretary of State made an identical announcement on 8 April?

Mr. Blunkett: I thought that Liberal Democrats welcoming all our policies was too good to be true on

local election day. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is for or against the £6 million. It is £6 million, not £600 million. I wish it were £600 million; I would have announced it three times rather than twice. The £500,000 specifically to save the Pre-School Learning Alliance from closures was entirely new money, extremely welcomed by it and will enable it to continue its excellent work at local level.

Mr. Derek Foster: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's trail-blazing child care policies? Will he confirm that his departmental research shows that 90 per cent. of employers make no provision whatever for child care assistance? Are we sure that Departments and agencies are that good in this respect? Will he make certain that Departments and agencies become model employers and give a lead in policies on child care?

Mr. Blunkett: The analysis to which my right hon. Friend refers is correct. There is clearly a long way to go. Part of the development of the consultation on the proposed Green Paper will be in engaging all stakeholders and partners in ensuring that they make their contribution. I agree that Departments and agencies have a key role to play. From discussion with Cabinet colleagues, I know that forthcoming announcements will illustrate very positive departmental moves in just that direction.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the Secretary of State aware that many people who are employed in pre-school care of young children are now required to gain qualifications in order to be so employed? Very great financial burdens will be placed on pre-school groups, which can just about manage to pay for staff, if they have to fund from their own resources courses to enable staff to become qualified. Will he look at that difficulty and endeavour to grant aid for qualifications?

Mr. Blunkett: I am certainly very happy to look at that and to talk to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the costs of establishing a framework in which training is a crucial part of ensuring that resources—available through, for instance, the working families tax credit from next year—can be applied to high-quality child care, and that the £1.2 million, for example, that my Department gives to the Pre-School Learning Alliance specifically for training enables it to provide accreditation and a foothold on what is becoming known as a climbing frame of qualifications, on which those who begin as volunteers develop child care provision and facilities that allow them to progress to more formalised training.

Care Leavers

Mr. Hilton Dawson: If he will make a statement on his proposals to address the needs of care leavers for access to further and higher education. [40037]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): We have set out comprehensive plans to widen participation in further and higher education, and care leavers will benefit from those, as well as from our drive to raise standards.

Mr. Dawson: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree that the fact that no more than 1 per cent.


of young people who leave care go into higher education is a disgrace that should shame us all and make us determined to take action? Will he discuss with ministerial colleagues the importance of amending section 24 of the Children Act 1989 to ensure that local authorities have a duty to provide financial assistance to young people who leave care, up to their 25th birthday?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important subject. The House should know, if it does not already, that 75 per cent. of care leavers have no academic qualifications of any kind, 50 per cent. of young people leaving care after reaching their 16th birthday are unemployed, and no less than 23 per cent. of adult prisoners and 38 per cent. of young prisoners have been in care. Those are extremely shocking figures. We need to examine urgently ways to ensure that education, employment and training are provided much more effectively.
We have set up a social exclusion unit and a national forum, which includes representatives of leading statutory and voluntary agencies, to examine possible initiatives such as the issuing of statutory guidance to authorities and schools, providing better information on and setting targets for educational outcomes, promoting advocacy schemes and focusing the work of careers services more sharply to consider the futures and careers of those very unfortunate young people.

New Deal

6. Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on the cost of the new deal in 1998–99. [40038]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): The new deal for the young unemployed and adult long-term unemployed men and women is people-focused, so the resources will follow the individual. At the end of this year we will be aware of how many people have been eligible and how many have taken up the guaranteed places that are available—hence we will also know the exact resources that will be spent in the current financial year.

Mr. Bercow: Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) and the reply by the Secretary of State, can the right hon. Gentleman explain the bizarre situation in which the 216,000 long-term unemployed people over the age of 25 will receive almost five times less of the new deal money in 1998–9 than the young unemployed, even though there are nearly 100,000 more of them? Does not that show that the Minister for School Standards is not the only Minister who cannot do his sums, and that the problem is endemic throughout the Department?

Mr. Blunkett: The statistics that the hon. Gentleman has just paraded show just how necessary our numeracy task force is for the Opposition as well. At the risk of repetition I might add that I explained in words of one syllable to his right hon. Friend exactly what the situation was. I explained that an additional £450 million was available from mainstream programmes and that it was

being applied to older men and women. In the end, the only way to stop long-term adult unemployment is to stop long-term unemployment among those under 25.

Mr. Jim Murphy: When my right hon. Friend publishes the first annual report on the new deal, will he, as well as publishing the figures on this Government's new deal, set out clearly the facts and figures detailing the Tory's old deal? That old deal promised hopelessness, joblessness, the consequences of crime and much else besides. The annual report must not simply show cold statistics; it must help people to realise the changes that have occurred in real people's lives.

Mr. Blunkett: What a wonderful idea. I thank my hon. Friend for it.

Music Tuition

Mr. David Heath: What plans he has to increase the availability of musical instrument tuition in local education authority schools. [40039]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Estelle Morris): We recognise the important contribution which musical instrument tuition can make to every child's education. Our forthcoming consultation paper on local management of schools will set out our proposals to ensure that such tuition is funded properly.

Mr. Heath: I am most grateful for that answer, if a little puzzled by it. When, on 16 February, I asked the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport the very same question, he said that intensive discussions between the two Departments were under way to come up with specific proposals on musical instrument tuition, and that those proposals would be announced within a few weeks. I do not know how intensive the discussions are, but they are certainly protracted. Can the hon. Lady tell me when the proposals will be produced and we shall be able to restore some of the tuition that has been lost in recent years?

Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman is right: my right hon. Friend is indeed looking into how we can improve music tuition in schools. We are talking to him about that to develop proposals. It is for him to say when he will make an announcement to the House.

Mr. Eric Clarke: As a brass band lover, may I ask whether the Minister will include the instruments played by brass and silver bands in this particular policy? The fact is that that culture in mining and industrial areas is dying out. I hope that Ministers will encourage it to remain.

Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. It is crucial to retain that sort of activity in schools. One of the great joys of visiting schools throughout the country is seeing the high standard of performance of some of the orchestras and bands there and in local authority areas. I share my hon. Friend's pleasure in listening to brass bands; they should continue; under this Government they will thrive.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the hon. Lady agree that, although music education provision is


patchy across the country, the standard of youth music is extraordinarily high, for which teachers and pupils deserve great credit? Will she consider implementing a programme under which one school in each local authority is designated a centre of excellence for music tuition? The skills generated at such an establishment could then permeate the whole area.

Ms Morris: I share the hon. Gentleman's pleasure in the excellent music that we hear in schools. His idea is interesting. On specialist schools, he will know that the Government are considering the development of centres of excellence, which will benefit pupils not only at the school, but at feeder and neighbouring schools, as well as in the wider community. I shall certainly reflect on his suggestion.

Multimedia Laptops

Mrs. Betty Williams: What plans he has to ensure teachers and head teachers have access to multimedia laptops. [40040]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): In March, the Government allocated £23 million for the purchase of 9,500 multimedia portable computers for the use of head teachers and senior teachers in maintained schools. That means that about 25 per cent. of schools in England will have teachers who have received laptops from the initiative.

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that effective use of information and communications technology will help to raise standards in literacy and numeracy? Can he say what the figures are for Wales?

Mr. Byers: I am pleased to say that a similar initiative is being developed by the Welsh Office. The real challenge for the Government is to ensure that we can harness the benefits of new technology to support the basics of literacy and numeracy, which is why we are developing our national literacy strategy alongside our national grid for learning, so that the two initiatives complement each other and bridges can be built between them. In doing that, we believe that we can not only give young people a grounding in the basics, but allow them to embrace new technology.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Why should it be necessary for the Secretary of State to interfere in such matters? Could not any halfway competent head sort out for himself whether he wants to spend some of his budget on a laptop computer? Is not the real problem that the Government have insisted on taking full control over budgets away from head teachers, so that busybody Ministers have constantly to nanny and to interfere, when they should properly be dealing with policy?

Mr. Byers: This is additional money that has been targeted for a specific purpose—we are confident that it will raise standards in schools. That represents a totally different approach from that adopted by the previous Government, who stood to one side and ignored the needs of children in our schools. We shall not do that. We do not accept the criticism that we are creating a nanny state;

in raising standards in schools, we are going with the grain of public and parental opinion, which is why our education policies have a huge approval rating.

Skill Shortages

Mr. Barry Jones: What steps the Government are taking to tackle skill shortages. [40041]

Dr. Alan Whitehead: What steps the Government are taking to tackle skill shortages. [40042]

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): We have established a national skills task force, incorporating all sides of industry and commerce and large and small enterprises. It will report in a couple of months on its findings from the seminars that it has held and its work with industry across the country. We shall have at our disposal the £100 million that the Chancellor allocated on 17 March specifically to tackle the skills needs of Britain in the years to come, and we shall build on the 55 national training organisations that have been accredited in the past 12 months.

Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the task force finds sufficient skilled labour for Britain's healthy aerospace industry? Is he aware that in my constituency British Aerospace casts its net far and wide to find skilled labour, while my unemployed, unskilled constituents find it hard to find real jobs? Will he ensure that the task force gets a grip on that wretched situation?

Mr. Blunkett: Matching the needs of the economy with people who have the talent and the will to be part of a labour force of high earners and high added value—an economy of the 21st century to match the best in the world—is a critical element in tackling the skills shortage and ensuring that we can have sustainable growth with low inflation.

Dr. Whitehead: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and join him in welcoming the establishment of the skills task force, which will give us the prospect of a genuine national skills strategy—in sharp contrast, rhetorical flourishes aside, with the previous Government's record. Will he ensure that the task force looks to the long term and tackles the immediate problems? How will it work alongside existing agencies such as training and enterprise councils?

Mr. Blunkett: Agencies such as training and enterprise councils are represented and the chairman of the task force, Chris Humphries, who has great experience in the field, will from July be the head of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. The skills task force has already identified the fact that there is considerable need for information technology skills.


If Opposition Members will forgive me for saying so, the notion that equipping the nation with the information skills of the future is being a nanny state is the kind of thinking that got us into the mess that we got into in the 1980s. It ill becomes those who have the greatest experience of nannies to deny it to anyone else.

Miss Anne McIntosh: How have the skills shortages been perceived? Will there be a full, continuing audit of them?

Mr. Blunkett: The 55 national training organisations and the specific focus of industries working to develop a profile of their needs and to transmit it to both further education and private providers will be a crucial element in ensuring that we get it right. It is a bottom-up approach, with industry, commerce and services determining what is required, and the public services and private enterprise responding positively to those needs.

Student Funding

Mr. Huw Edwards: What proposals he has to review the funding of students who attend further education establishments in England but reside in Wales. [40043]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no such plans.

Mr. Edwards: May I convey to my hon. Friend the concern felt in further education colleges about funding for students who come from across the border? The Royal Forest of Dean college is close to my constituency, and the principal is concerned that she is not able to advertise her courses in Monmouth. If young people are to take full advantage of the Government's commitment to lifelong learning, they need full access to information about all courses in local colleges, be they in England or in Wales.

Mr. John Bercow: That was off message.

Dr. Howells: Not at all; my hon. Friend is not off message. If a student from Wales wants to study in England, the English Further Education Funding Council will fund that student. It does not have a duty to do so, but it is a matter of policy that it always does. There is no prohibition on advertising by English further education colleges in Wales, especially ones that traditionally have cross-border catchment areas, as does the Royal Forest of Dean college. If my hon. Friend has evidence that the principal of that college has been denied the opportunity to advertise its attractions in and around Monmouth, I shall certainly look into the matter and write to him.

University Assessment

Mr. Barry Sheerman: What plans he has to broaden the scope of the assessment exercises for universities for research and teaching to other fields. [40044]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Annual grants for universities and colleges approach £1 billion for research and exceed £2.5 billion for teaching. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that, in the interests of accountability, the distribution of such large sums should take account of assessments of quality. The Government value other university activities and are, with the Higher Education Funding Council for England, considering ways in which these can be evaluated and supported.

Mr. Sheerman: Is my hon. Friend aware that many universities want to help the Government to build a knowledge-based information society that is an enterprise society in which jobs and wealth will be created into the next century? However, they feel inhibited because— although there are teaching and research assessment exercises—no matter how much work a university puts into enterprise and helping businesses internationally, nationally and locally, little credit is given to them. Many universities want an enterprise assessment exercise so that they can get credit and take part in useful partnerships.

Dr. Howells: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's suggestion. Universities are tremendous resources for the communities they serve. They are too often underutilised in terms of what they can provide for local businesses. I would be interested in any suggestion or scheme that encourages the link between universities and the local economy and in studying how they can have a symbiotic relationship with each other to increase competitiveness in their regions and in the universities.

Mr. David Willetts: The Minister will be aware that many people in higher education are worried that research and teaching will be hit next year by the Chancellor's Budget increase in employers' national insurance contributions. If the Minister really wants to help them, he could give an assurance that they will be fully compensated for higher national insurance contributions next year. Can he give that assurance?

Dr. Howells: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing such matters with the Treasury. We will ensure that, in future, university funding does not suffer as it has over the past 18 years.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the Minister change one of the more ludicrous aspects of the research assessment exercises in universities? If a university manages to recruit a star lecturer or professor from another university, all research previously published at his or her old university is included in the research assessment exercise, to the credit of the new university. It is as though a football club that paid a transfer fee for a centre forward also received the goals that that centre forward had scored in the previous season, which would be ludicrous. What will the Minister do to change that absurd inheritance from the mob on the Opposition Benches?

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend's point is valid. It is crazy that people come trailing clouds of glory that often evaporate quickly if they do not find themselves in a


suitable working environment. The research assessment exercise is under review, and the issue that my hon. Friend raises will be a main focus of study.

Education Action Zones

Mr. Stephen Timms: If he will make a statement on progress with his education action zone initiative. [40045]

The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have received 60 applications to become education action zones. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to announce 25 successful candidates in June, of which 12 will start in September, and 13 in January 1999.

Mr. Timms: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the bid submitted by the London borough of Newham for Eastleigh school and its feeder primaries in the south-west of the borough? If so, has he noticed the high level of private sector support for that bid? We have £250,000 from East London Partnerships, an organisation wholly funded by the private sector, and substantial contributions amounting to more than £1 million in cash and kind for the first year of the programme from leading individual private sector firms including BT, Bull Information Systems, IBM, Arthur Andersen and Docklands Light Railway.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the bid's success in attracting such a high level of support shows the huge potential of the Government's partnership approach to education? Will he bear firmly in mind the strength of that bid as he adjudicates between it and the other 59 bids over the next six weeks? May I draw it to his attention that the Newham bid is ready and eager to roll from September, and would not have to wait until January?

Mr. Byers: The point has been taken, but Newham is one of a number of bids that have in an exciting way motivated and enthused not only local education authorities but the private sector to become involved. I believe that it will prove to be one of the most exciting initiatives on which the Government have embarked and will provide the opportunity to target resources from the private sector, central Government and LEAs. There will be one clear objective—to raise standards in schools and areas where there is underperformance and underachievement. It is an exciting initiative and I greatly welcome the enthusiasm with which people throughout the country have responded to it.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I know that the Minister is aware that there is a bid for an education action zone in a deprived part of my constituency; I am sure that his Department will give equal consideration to it. Is he aware that heads of schools in bid areas have heard informally that his Department may use education action zones to try out the new ideas for four-term years or reduced status for head teachers? Will he give an absolute assurance that education action zones will not become laboratories for the latest fads and fashions emanating from his Department?

Mr. Byers: Education action zones will build on best practice and ensure that in areas such as Surrey, standards

can be raised. The hon. Gentleman should address some of his comments to Surrey county council, which has had a 5.5 per cent. increase in its education standard spending assessment but has passed on only 3 per cent. of it to its schools. If the council was serious about raising standards in its schools it would have made a substantial contribution by passing on to its schools the money given by the Government.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will it be possible to extend the concept of education action zones as quickly as possible to other areas of the country, as the initiative is designed to tackle the incredible levels of underachievement in many of the most difficult areas of the country? Our children deserve much better. Can my hon. Friend confirm that he will as speedily as possible implement the existing scheme and extend it as widely as possible?

Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans 25 action zones in the coming school year. We shall want to reflect on their success, especially of the first 12, which will be established in September. We are confident that they will be successful, so we shall want to expand the programme. We shall need to take a little time to see exactly what has been successful so that we can learn from the best and ensure that we can extend the benefits of the education action zone initiative to all our schools, not just the initial 25.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister accept that many of those who welcomed the Government's ideas for education action zones and thought that they might represent some of the first tangible evidence of what Ministers meant when they talked about that elusive concept of the third way are now increasingly concerned that the Minister's third way for schools is turning into a cul de sac? Education action zones were presented as an alternative to local education authority management of schools. Professor Barber even speculated publicly that they might lead to schools being managed by Procter and Gamble. Now that the applications are in, is it not clear that the truth is significantly different? Can the Minister confirm that every one of the 60 applications that he has received were led by the LEA? Can he explain to the House what price the third way now?

Mr. Byers: It would be inappropriate for me to give details of the 60 applications, but it is not true to say that all 60 are led by LEAs. There is a good mix of applications and the Government will be looking for strong applications. We shall not adopt a position based on dogma. We shall look at what is best and what will work in practice, putting the interests of children first. We believe that education action zones might show the way forward for the future and, by doing that, we shall ensure that we can provide the best quality education for all our children, not just a few.

Disabled People

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress is being made through the new deal to assist the disabled. [40046]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): Young disabled people aged 18 to 24 in receipt of jobseeker's allowance are benefiting from opportunities for early access and the personal adviser service in the new deal for unemployed young people. The first contracts for projects in the new deal for disabled people will be awarded this month.

Dr. Starkey: I welcome what the Government are doing to help disabled people into employment, but I should like to voice concerns about a specific group, the mentally ill, that have been raised with me by Milton Keynes MIND, which represents and works for mentally ill people in my constituency.
My hon. Friend will know that 83 per cent. of people of working age with mental illness are economically inactive. They face particular problems getting into work because of the recurrent nature of mental illness: periods of health and ability to work are interspersed with recurrent episodes of ill health. Is the system being designed with sufficient flexibility to help such people get back into employment in the long term?

Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I know of the imaginative support she gives to Milton Keynes MIND and to the Milton Keynes and North Buckinghamshire disability network and of the important work done by both those organisations. She is right to say that people with mental health problems face great difficulties relating to employment and we are bringing in reforms to improve their opportunities for work and social inclusion. I mention the extension to 12 months of the period for which a person who has been on incapacity benefit can try out work without losing the right to return to the same rate of benefit if that should prove necessary; the removal of the restriction to 16 hours of the amount of voluntary work that a person on incapacity benefit may do without forfeiting that benefit; and the development under the new deal for disabled people of the role of personal advisers, who will give flexible and sensitive support to individual disabled people, including those with mental illness.

Mrs. Theresa May: Does the Minister accept that the Government's own figures show that in this financial year £580 million is to be spent under the new deal on 118,000 young unemployed people whereas over the next four years £195 million is to be spent on 1 million people with disabilities who are unemployed? Does the Minister accept that for unemployed people with disabilities that is a poor deal compared with that for those who are young and unemployed and that the Government should try to put more money from the new deal into opportunities for people with disabilities? Will he guarantee that he will put pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that any sums that are available under the new deal but are not being spent elsewhere will be spent on opportunities for people with disabilities?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady knows that I shall try to secure as many resources as possible to support disabled people and to give them the opportunities that they ought to have to get into work, to stay in work and to thrive in work. Her figures are somewhat speculative and she

should bear it in mind that new deal for disabled people funding is in addition to a range of other programmes that already serve disabled people.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Is the Minister aware that, like other hon. Members, I have been contacted by the person who is implementing the new deal in my area asking for my ideas? I had some ideas I wished to share in respect of people with disabilities because there are well-established schemes around the country, but I was alarmed to find that, when we opened up the discussion and I asked how many people in my travel-to-work area who were registered as having a disability might be eligible, the person did not know. When I asked what arrangements could be made to help people who had transport difficulties either because of lack of mobility or their needing to be accompanied to work, I was told that that matter had not been addressed. When I asked which disability benefits — not only incapacity benefit, but which other benefits—would qualify under the scheme, again I was told that the issue had not been thought out. I hope that, when the Minister leaves the Chamber, he will put the disabled and their part in the new deal at the top of his list, because it seems clear from the conversation I had with the person responsible for implementing the new deal that they are at the bottom of the list.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady may have forgotten that the Government of which she was a member abolished the system of registering disabled people in their disability discrimination legislation. I am glad that she is willing to share her thinking and give her advice to the Employment Service and, in particular, to disability employment advisers in her constituency.
We are developing the new deal for disabled people in consultation with organisations of and for disabled people. A consultative seminar on 12 May will examine how we should design the personal adviser service. The hon. Lady is a little premature when she suggests that everything ought to be cut and dried at this early stage.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I find it hard to believe what Tory Members are saying about the disabled. My hon. Friend knows, as do many of my hon. Friends who were Members at the time, that three years in succession we tried to pass disability Bills but the Tory Government filibustered and stopped them. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was a member of that Government. We carried one of the Bills by 200 votes to nil, and her colleague, Nicholas Scott, was dragged to the House late one Friday to filibuster and stop it being passed. There was not a squeak from the hon. Lady and all her sidekicks on the Front Bench then. They stink to high heaven and they are hypocrites.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend evokes some of the great struggles that we had on Friday morning after Friday morning, when the previous Government, to my great sadness, opposed and frustrated the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill for which he and I fought. At least we now have a Government who are committed unequivocally to introducing comprehensive, enforceable civil rights for disabled people.

Unemployment

Mr. David Rendel: What assistance is provided by his Department for unemployed people over the age of 50 wishing to return to work. [40047]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): The Department currently provides a wide range of help for all unemployed people over 50 who wish to return to work. That help will be extended from June when the new deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25 and over is introduced.

Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister agree that in addition to direct assistance to people who are over 50 and unemployed, it would be helpful if he could run a campaign that gives indirect help by persuading employers that the dependability, experience and loyalty older people often exhibit are worth at least as much to them as the qualities in which younger people often excel?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and employers who are prejudiced against employing people in their 50s or older and who discriminate against them frequently do themselves a disservice. Any systematic age discrimination is unacceptable, which is why the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), has been consulting on and preparing the policies that we will introduce to end such discrimination.

Mr. Dale Campbell—Savours: The job club in Maryport in my constituency, which is of great help to the over-50s, is to close tomorrow. I am not happy about that because it sends out the wrong signals in an area that has the highest unemployment in Cumbria. Can the decision, even at this late stage, be reviewed? In particular, can the impact of closure be measured so that we can assess what effect it has on the local community?

Mr. Howarth: No hon. Member fights more determinedly for his constituents than my hon. Friend. I shall ask the chief executive of the Employment Service to examine the case carefully and satisfy himself that the Employment Service has made the right decision in Maryport. I do not know the detailed circumstances in my hon. Friend's constituency that may have led to that decision, but I can tell him that from June the new deal for long-term unemployed people should be of great value to his constituents.

Disabled People

Mr. Tom Levitt: What plans he has to develop the role of personal advisers in improving disabled people's prospects of employment. [40050]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Alan Howarth): Under the new deal for disabled people, the personal adviser service will offer an expert, individually tailored service designed to encourage and support people on incapacity benefits as they seek work and greater independence. We have announced plans to start pilot services in the autumn.
The new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds, which began nationwide on 6 April, also helps disabled young people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance. Personal advisers will, as part of the gateway stage, help identify the most appropriate route into employment, tailored to each disabled person's needs.

Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure he agrees that disabled people should receive a sympathetic and understanding reception at whichever part of the Employment Service they first come into contact with. Will he ensure, therefore, that good practice in that respect, whether it is from the new deal, the placing assessment counselling teams, or other parts of the Employment Service, is disseminated throughout that service for the benefit of all disabled people seeking work?

Mr. Howarth: I strongly welcome what my hon. Friend has said. We expect good practice that is developed in the gateway and in the whole experience of the new deals, including the new deal for disabled people, to be spread throughout the Employment Service. I know that my hon. Friend has been in discussions with Leigh Lewis, the chief executive of the Employment Service, and I am sure that he is aware of the guidance given to staff of the Employment Service that they should treat all clients with the sensitivity and dignity that they are entitled to expect.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: We take points of order after statements and the business question.

Business of the House

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: May I ask the Leader of the House for next week's business.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows.
MONDAY 11 MAY—Second Reading of the Competition Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 12 MAY—Remaining stages of the Scotland Bill (second day).
WEDNESDAY 13 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MAY—Consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill.
FRIDAY 15 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 18 MAY—Opposition Day [11th allotted day].
There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 19 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Scotland Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 MAY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (first day).
THURSDAY 21 MAY—Debate on the common agricultural policy on a Government motion. Details will be given in the Official Report.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 20 May there will be a debate on fisheries monitoring under the common fisheries policy in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Thursday 21 May:
Floor of the House—Relevant European Community document: 7073/98, Agenda 2000: Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98).
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community document: 6123/98, Fisheries Monitoring under the Common Fisheries Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC I 55-xxii (1997–98).]

Mrs. Shephard: I thank the right hon. Lady for that statement, and for giving the House two weeks' business. I also thank her for rearranging the business, following the suggestion that there might have been a debate next week on the work of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. It is extremely courteous of her to be so accommodating to the Opposition's needs, and I am very grateful.
I understand the problems that the right hon. Lady has in fitting the Government's legislative programme into the time remaining for this Session, although, as I have remarked many times, the problems are of the Government's own making. Nevertheless, given the private notice question yesterday on Sierra Leone and the fact that next month the United Kingdom's presidency of the European Union ends, I must repeat my request for a debate on foreign affairs, and especially for the Foreign Secretary's reassurance to the House that his avowed aim to pursue an ethical foreign policy remains on course.
Once again, I must ask the right hon. Lady when the Government will publish the Bill on the registration of political parties. It has been helpful that Opposition parties have been involved in the preparation of the Bill, as the right hon. Lady correctly pointed out on earlier occasions when I raised the matter, but that is not the same as seeing the Bill and being able to study it. I have consistently argued that we need to see and study the Bill alongside the constitutional Bills that are going through the House. We were promised the Bill shortly after Easter, and that time, however vaguely defined, has now passed.
Hon. Members will have received their questionnaires from the Modernisation Committee on possible changes to voting procedures. Can the right hon. Lady confirm my impression that changes to Prime Minister's Question Time, which were rather abruptly introduced a year ago by the Prime Minister, were for a trial period? Does she have any plans to give hon. Members the chance to comment on how that experiment has worked—apart, of course, from halving at a stroke the number of times each week the Prime Minister must bring himself to the House of Commons?
As Conservative Members have made clear, we welcome the judicial impartiality with which Lord Justice Phillips is approaching his work on the bovine spongiform encephalopathy inquiry. Is it not all the more regrettable, therefore, that the Prime Minister, in saying on 4 March on the Floor of the House that the Conservatives "gave the country BSE", has clearly made up his mind about the outcome of what he and his Government have billed as an impartial inquiry? He apparently has no qualms about pre-empting the work of Lord Justice Phillips and his colleagues.
We should be grateful if the right hon. Lady would arrange for the Prime Minister to confirm or otherwise whether he regards the inquiry as impartial and, if he does, to withdraw his unfortunate remarks on 4 March. I raise that matter because my correspondence with the Prime Minister making that simple request has been terminated rather peremptorily by a letter from a private secretary refusing to answer the point. Apart from the ill-tempered discourtesy that that reveals, and the fact that it is hardly a demonstration of open government in practice, it shows that, as we have all learnt over the past year, saying is one thing and doing is another for the Government.

Mrs. Taylor: On the last point, I have no knowledge of the correspondence to which the right hon. Lady refers, so I cannot comment on that at this stage.


I am glad that the right hon. Lady again acknowledged that we have been able to announce two weeks' business. We have been able to do that ever since we came back after the summer recess and possibly some time before that. As we get further into the summer, however, it may be more difficult to provide precise details of business so far in advance, but I shall endeavour to do so whenever possible.
The right hon. Lady acknowledged that we have taken off the modernisation debate which was planned for next Thursday. We are very short of time, but we intend to reschedule the debate at a time that will be more convenient to her. I know that there are extremely good reasons why the Opposition wanted the debate to be moved.
The right hon. Lady referred to a foreign affairs debate in the context of a debate on the presidency; that was mentioned last week as well. I can confirm that I intend that there should be a full day's pre-Council debate before the Cardiff summit meeting. That would be helpful to everyone. I cannot give a precise date, although it may be helpful to the House to state that that will be a full day's debate, according to present plans.
As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, we have been extremely helpful in providing for as much consultation on the registration of political parties Bill as possible, not only with the official Opposition but with other parties. I expect that we shall see that Bill shortly. We will certainly have the normal period between publication and Second Reading, so the right hon. Lady should have no fears on that. However, I do not accept her proposition that it is relevant to other constitutional changes introduced by other legislation.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the questionnaire sent out by the Modernisation Committee on voting procedure. I hope that hon. Members will remember to return the questionnaire on time so that we can get a full picture of the views of the House.
As for the changes to Prime Minister's questions, the right hon. Lady managed to keep a straight face when asking about the trial. I think that it is the Leader of the Opposition, rather than anyone else, who is on trial. A quick check on the time that the Prime Minister spends on Prime Minister's questions will show that, in the past 12 months, he has spent more time answering questions at the Dispatch Box than did the previous Prime Minister during a similar period. I think that the procedure is working quite well.
As to the right hon. Lady's complaints about BSE, she knows that it is an impartial and important inquiry. The simple, basic and irrefutable fact is that the Conservatives were in power when the problems arose and their mishandling of the situation led to many difficulties.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the affairs of some 10 years ago and the active role that then Ministers of the Crown played in breaking the United Nations embargo on the export of arms into areas of conflict and potential conflict? Some of those Ministers, such as the

right hon. Member for Westminster, invited industrialists to falsify documents so that arms could be sold to Iraq. Those same arms were used against British soldiers—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the wrong constituency. When making serious allegations such as this, it is extremely important that he refers to the correct constituency representative.

Mr. Rogers: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Chelsea, who was Minister for Trade and who then became Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Madam Speaker: Order. Kensington and Chelsea. Let us get it right.

Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to emphasise that I am referring to the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). The Government of the day broke not only the United Nations embargo but the guidelines laid down by the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House in view of the extreme hypocrisy shown by the Government at that time?

Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to say that, in view of the detail that my hon. Friend has provided, I am not sure that he even needs to apply for an Adjournment debate on that subject—but perhaps he might like to do so.

Mr. Paul Tyler: May I express some disappointment—although I understand the reasons for the decision—at the fact that we shall not debate the Modernisation Committee reports? Not only does the House wish to make some advances on the issues that the Committee has raised, but I think that we need a more general debate about the priorities of that Committee. I think that the right hon. Lady will agree that there is much pressure from both sides of the House for the Committee to turn its attention to the important issues of working hours, the parliamentary day, week and year and how Parliament handles private Members' Bills. I hope that we shall have that debate before too long.
I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the fact that there is now a gap in the programme next Thursday. Could we fill it with a debate on an issue that clearly concerns many hon. Members: the Foreign Office and arms sales? I share the view of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) that the humbug and hypocrisy that we have seen from the Conservatives on this issue in the past 48 hours have been breathtaking and mind-boggling. It is as if we do not remember—I am sure that the Leader of the House does—the way in which the previous Government treated the Scott report. Not only was it undermined in advance, but, as soon as it appeared and a statement was made in the House, the Government refused to act on its central conclusion. Therefore, I hope that the first lesson we have learnt from the past 24 hours is that we must take a proper, dispassionate view of such issues rather than the prejudiced view adopted by the Opposition.
I hope that the Leader of the House will agree that we should have learnt some lessons from that episode and that we should not repeat the mistakes that were made


then. I draw her attention to the fact that, yesterday, the Foreign Secretary admitted that it took two months for the letter about Sierra Leone from my noble Friend Lord Avebury in the other place to reach the Minister's desk. That is quite extraordinary. I hope that we can have an early explanation on why Ministers were kept in the dark.
In response to the debate on 2 April opened by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), promised answers on issues precisely relevant to the behaviour of the Foreign Office and its monitoring of arms sales. We have not had those answers. For example, we still do not know what biological weapons were constructed as a result of the supply of materials from Britain. Clearly, matters such as Iraq, germ warfare and the role of the Foreign Office need a great deal more attention.
Finally, surely by now we should know whether the Government intend to ratify the Ottawa convention.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point about questions and the hon. Gentleman will know that we know the Government's position on the Ottawa convention. We signed the convention in December and we have made it clear publicly that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time allows.
On the hon. Gentleman's other points about the private notice question answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the inquiries which are now to take place should not be prejudged. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there are clearly differences. As much information as is available at this stage has been given to the House. An inquiry is being conducted by Customs and Excise and there will also be an internal Foreign and Commonwealth Office inquiry. The House will be kept fully informed of the results of both those investigations in due course.
The hon. Gentleman's points on modernisation are well taken. It is important to have a debate to consider not only the reports that have been published so far, but to take stock of what the House wishes the Modernisation Committee to consider next. The Committee has already decided to consider the parliamentary week and year and we are to have a survey on voting methods. There is much to justify a debate and there is great interest in the House on that matter.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On 1 July 1994, we had a full day's debate on veterans' issues and it was one of the best attended Friday debates. Hon. Members from all corners of the House expressed the wish that we should have such a debate again, perhaps annually. In view of the interests of all hon. Members in veterans' issues, such as dependants and war widows, will my right hon. Friend try to find an opportunity for a debate when hon. Members—the overwhelming majority, I think—have an opportunity to air views on matters ranging from Gulf war syndrome, to the equal treatment of war widows in relation to local authority housing benefit and visiting of war graves? Such a debate would be most welcome to all hon. Members.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has taken a specific interest in this matter for many years and I have listened

to him carefully. He raises significant issues and he is right to say that they are of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I shall bear in mind his suggestion for a Friday debate later in the year. I cannot give any guarantee that it will be possible to fit in such a debate, but I shall not rule it out.

Sir Peter Emery: I had intended to ask only one question, but will the right hon. Lady reconsider her reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard)? To dismiss the promised review of Prime Minister's questions simply on the issue of time does not take into account the great benefit to the Government of the Prime Minister having to be here only once a week and the great advantage to the Opposition of having the Prime Minister here twice a week. That is a considerable matter which needs review.
I come now to the question that I had originally intended to ask. The right hon. Lady knows that I pressed my Government many times for debates on Procedure Committee reports. I shall not do that, and I understand the reason for the deferment of the debate which was to take place next Thursday. However, is it not the case that no preparation has yet been made by the Government to bring in the necessary Standing Orders to deal with the first two reports of the Modernisation Committee and the recommendations in those reports, which were agreed by the House as long ago as the end of the summer? Surely there should be some positive action to bring those into operation.

Mrs. Taylor: Precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for could have happened if we had had the debate next Thursday. When I gave the provisional business last week, I announced that there would be a debate and motions on modernisation. I do not say that we shall get all the changes to Standing Orders, because I am keen that we should proceed on the basis of agreement. However, at the end of such a debate there will be an opportunity to endorse some of the Modernisation Committee's decisions.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will thought be given to widening the potential of the foreign affairs debate so that it includes third-world debt, which was last discussed in the House in an Adjournment debate on 3 March? Given the campaign by Christian Aid and others directed towards the G8 summit, it would be appropriate to include that matter in that debate.

Mrs. Taylor: There are many issues that we should like to have debated. The debate that I mentioned specifically relates to our presidency and to the Council meeting in June. There may be opportunities for other foreign affairs debates during the year. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development would like a debate on her portfolio. We are trying to fit in as many such debates as possible, but we may not be able to have them all. However, I shall bear all representations in mind.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and for Defence have received a letter signed by a number of former generals, admirals and air chief marshals,


distinguished members of universities commenting on military affairs and many others, including retired diplomats from important posts connected with NATO, suggesting that it is wrong to expand NATO. As the Select Committee on Defence has also reported on NATO expansion but is in favour of it, does the Leader of the House agree that it is important to debate that vital issue in advance of the defence review so that we are better able to make an informed judgment?

Mrs. Taylor: A debate on NATO enlargement is on my list and I am trying to fit it in between Whit and the summer recess.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend's response to the request that we make time to debate ratification of the Ottawa convention. It is of great concern to some of my constituents—Soroptimists and others—who have written to me about it. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that it would be very sad if the first anniversary of Princess Diana's death were to pass without our having passed the necessary legislation?

Mrs. Taylor: We want to move as quickly as we can, but my hon. Friend and others will appreciate the weight of the programme before the House. As I said earlier, we have signed that convention and given clear assurances that we intend to ratify it as soon as parliamentary time becomes available.

Mr. Edward Garner: The right hon. Lady may know that last Thursday was the closing date for responses to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper on legal aid reform. Most people who know anything about that subject have so far concluded that the proposals, both those originally advanced last October and the amended version pronounced last March, were economically illiterate and politically inept and will prove to be socially divisive. May we therefore have a debate at the earliest opportunity, following the Lord Chancellor's report on the consultation process, so that hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, who have not got their heads around this matter, can have an opportunity to do so?

Mrs. Taylor: One would not think from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks that the review of legal aid is to sort out the mess that we inherited from the Conservative Government. There have been debates in this Parliament, but I shall bear in mind the suggestion that we should have another debate on legal aid. It is important that we review the situation so that the public can have confidence in the legal aid system, which was not the case under the previous Government.

Mr. John Cryer: I wonder, first, whether my right hon. Friend can find time for a debate or a statement on recruitment of teachers, which is a particular problem in my area. There is a shortage of teachers when jobs are advertised.
Secondly, may we have a return to a specific Question Time on the European Union? The single currency is becoming a bigger and bigger issue and we must put it under the spotlight—something that it fully deserves and every hon. Member would welcome. I remind my right

hon. Friend that the Tories abolished Question Time on the European Union and shifted it away from the spotlight. They are now keen to debate everything about Europe. Although they paraded themselves as great Euro-sceptics when in power, they were keen to shift the spotlight off it.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises two different points. There is a shortage of teachers in certain areas, and only in certain areas. He knows that the Department for Education and Employment is aware of the problem and is taking action on teacher recruitment, which I hope will help in his area. He could apply for an Adjournment debate, but that is the best I can offer, because there is no Government time for a debate on the Floor of the House.
I cannot accept the suggestion for a separate Question Time on EU matters, although I understand why my hon. Friend asked for that. EU-related matters come within a range of questions—not only Foreign Office questions, but Treasury questions and others. The current situation is best left.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is the Leader of the House aware that a serious financial impropriety at our embassy in Amman was examined by the Public Accounts Committee in February 1997? It involved a sum of £333,000 in respect of forged life insurance bonds of dead pensioners. Lo and behold, less than a year later, another serious financial situation was highlighted in the appropriation accounts for 1996–97, class II, vote 1. It involved the sum of £109,000, and a senior accounting official is facing serious criminal charges. In examining that matter, the principal accounting officer said that it was to the Foreign Office's shame that such a thing should have happened twice in the same embassy.
We now find that senior Foreign Office officials are covering up licences to Sierra Leone in respect of arms. I repeat in the strongest terms the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) for a debate in the House so that we can examine the conduct of senior Foreign Office officials who seem to be doing less than the high-standard job that one would expect of the Department.

Mrs. Taylor: I understand that the Public Accounts Committee highlighted several problems of that sort that occurred under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman is simply highlighting some of the difficulties that arose when his party was in government. I have nothing to add to what I have said about a wider debate.

Mr. Don Foster: Will the Leader of the House arrange as soon as possible for a Minister to report to the House on investigations into serious allegations that the United States Department of Defence at the Pentagon has attempted to hack into a computer of an organisation in my constituency? [Interruption.] Is she aware that the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has been investigating the activities of a number of dolphins, which were trained initially by the former Soviet Union, and more recently by Russia and Ukraine? Forty-three of those dolphins are now in the hands of other nationalities. The Pentagon is clearly interested in that. [Interruption.] Although the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has promised to give the Pentagon the report when it is


completed, there is now clear evidence that, more recently, the Pentagon has attempted to hack into the society's computers. Will the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will investigate and that there will be a statement by the relevant Minister on those investigations?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It sounds like David Icke.

Mrs. Taylor: I am receiving a great deal of advice from my hon. Friends about what I should say in answer to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know of any Department that has received any specific information on this matter, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman pass on any information of that kind. If he wants to raise the matter on the Floor of the House and get an answer from a Minister, he should try his luck with an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before anything more is said about Sierra Leone, may we have an explanation on why, despite all this fuss about the debate on 12 March, no Conservative Member bothered to participate in it? It is a debate about which the Conservatives are now so fussed, or purport to be so fussed. Is it not a matter of record that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), was candid and referred to The Observer report in column 844 of Hansard? He said:
It talked about Britain's talks with hired killers, and about the Foreign Office admitting our ambassador's link to notorious mercenaries plotting against Sierra Leone's Government. Ironically, that was wrong."—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 844.1
It would be an abuse of business questions to go any further, but before people start making such criticisms, should they not read the full debate and see that my hon. Friend the Minister was candid?

Mrs. Taylor: Not for the first time, my hon. Friend is helpful to the House. I know that he would never abuse business questions. I have to agree with him that it would not be the first time Conservative Members had jumped in, not only without reading the debate but without any of them participating in it. Fortunately, I am not responsible for speeches from Conservative Members.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that fine buildings are important to millions of people in Britain and an attraction to tourists, can the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate or statement on the role and performance of English Heritage? I have to inform the right hon. Lady that I have received representations from constituents who have complained that delays in the determination of applications for grant aid of six months and more are becoming commonplace. Hon. Members will recognise that the effect of such delays is to hold up

work that we would all recognise as vital to the national heritage. Will the right hon. Lady see her way to trying to assist in that matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot promise a debate on that matter, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House at an appropriate time to explain his conduct when he was standing in for the Prime Minister at Question Time on 8 April? He appeared to have an attack of amnesia and refused to answer a question, because he claimed that it was "not truthful" for me to have stated in that question that he, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister had all been supporters of the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament in the 1980s. If the Deputy Prime Minister were to be brought before the House, perhaps he would explain why he has singularly failed to acknowledge, let alone reply to, a letter from me including the exchange in question and asking him to say what was not truthful in the statement that I made in that question.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is brave or foolish in asking the Deputy Prime Minister to come back and batter him again, as he did at that Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister has missed only one Prime Minister's Question Time, and he did so because of the important events and the delicate situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has therefore had only one opportunity to stand in for the Prime Minister, and it was a very entertaining, informative and thoroughly enjoyable occasion for Labour Members.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I wonder whether I might return to a point raised by my right hon. Friends the shadow Leader of the House and the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), which the right hon. Lady rather skilfully managed to skirt around. Will she tell us whether the change in holding Prime Minister's Question Time once a week rather than twice a week—which is far more than only a change of time—is for an experimental period or for the duration of this Parliament? The impression that was given last year—when that arbitrary change was announced without any consultation with anyone—was that it would be for a period, and that the House would then be able to pass a judgment. Will the right hon. Lady please confirm precisely the position?

Mrs. Taylor: When the changes were made, I said that we would keep the position under review. We have been keeping the position under review, although I have received very few complaints about the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has been going. Although we are always willing to consider good ideas, the current situation is extremely satisfactory. I can think of no way of further improving Prime Minister's questions—other than by having better quality questions from the Opposition.

Sierra Leone (Ministerial Statements)

Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Tuesday, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he first knew of the Customs and Excise inquiry into arms sales to Sierra Leone on Friday 1 May. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told the House that the Minister of State first knew of the investigations in mid-April. "A code of conduct and guidance on procedures for Ministers" states:
It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
The Minister of State has, to my knowledge, done none of those things. I do not know whether you have been given any indication that he intends to do so, or whether in some other way the code's integrity and the rights of Parliament can be protected. I should be most grateful for your guidance on this matter.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: No. I can deal with this, thank you very much indeed.
If the Minister believes that he has inadvertently and significantly misled the Committee, the House will of course expect him to correct the situation. However, it is a matter between the Minister and the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That is the crucial point. Hon. Members were trying to be very helpful on that point of order, but I do not think that it was necessary.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was going to make the very point that you made. It is—

Madam Speaker: Order. I do not need any endorsement, thank you.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Orders of the Day — Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to open the debate on the Bill's introdu0ction and to recommend it to the House. This short Bill's purpose is to provide authority for preparatory expenditure by the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security on introduction of the new working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit.
As hon. Members will be aware, in his recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the introduction of the working families tax credit, from October 1999. The new tax credit is central to the Government's major programme of tax and benefit reform, and will provide a very real incentive to move from welfare into work, by significantly boosting the earnings of low-income families with children, and providing extra help with child care costs. It will build on and replace family credit; similarly, a new disabled persons tax credit will build on and replace disability working allowance. Both the new tax credits will be assessed and administered by the Inland Revenue, and from April 2000 will be paid mainly by employers through the wage packet.
The working families tax credit proposal has been widely welcomed. It is designed to make work pay for families. By providing a clear link with employment, it aims to demonstrate the rewards of work and help people to move off welfare benefit and into work. As a tax credit rather than a welfare benefit, it should also reduce any stigma associated with claiming in-work support. We believe that that will encourage higher take-up.
When it is fully up and running, the working families tax credit will provide around £ 5 billion of help to about 1.5 million working families—equivalent to £70 per family per week. It will give almost £1.5 billion more in-work support than family credit.
The working families tax credit represents an important step towards greater integration of the tax and benefit systems. In particular, it will reduce the current wasteful overlap between the tax and social security systems, whereby almost 500,000 families pay income tax to the Inland Revenue while receiving family credit from the Department of Social Security.
The Bill seeks to assist with the preparatory work. Although the working families tax credit will not begin until October 1999, there is a great deal of work to be done, as I am sure hon. Members will appreciate. The importance of the measures, with their significant benefits to low-income families and people with illnesses or disabilities, means that it is particularly important to ensure that the system works efficiently and effectively from the start. That involves very careful preparation. An Inland Revenue project team, working jointly with the Benefits Agency and the Department of Social Security, has been set up to plan the new processes.


The legislation to enact the tax credits will be introduced in the next parliamentary Session and hon. Members will have the opportunity to debate the details at that time. However, the basic structure and purpose of the tax credits are clear. I shall summarise them briefly.
In general, families on low incomes where the main earner works more than 16 hours a week will be entitled to a tax credit of £48.80 in respect of the adult or adults in the household. They will also be entitled to a tax credit in respect of each child, ranging from £14.85 to £25.40 a week, depending on the age of the child. There will be an additional tax credit of £10.80 where the main earner works more than 30 hours a week. That is to encourage people to move from part-time to full-time work.
In addition, the working families tax credit addresses the problem posed by the cost of child care, a major obstacle to work for many families. The scheme will include a child care tax credit designed to make support for child care through the tax system more generous and more transparent than is currently the case with family credit.
The child care tax credit will be worth 70 per cent. of eligible child care costs, subject to an overall limit on those costs of £100 a week for one child and £150 a week for two or more children. So, through the child care tax credit, support for child care costs will be provided up to a maximum of £70 a week for a family with one child and £105 per week for a family with two or more children. That will be a significant increase on the maximum support currently provided through family credit.
It is important to explain at what point withdrawal of benefit will start, once the working families tax credit is operational. Withdrawal from a family will start when their net income, before adding working families tax credit, exceeds £90 a week. That is called the withdrawal threshold. After that, the withdrawal rate for each additional pound of net earnings will be 55 per cent. That is known as the taper.
The structure of disabled person's tax credit will be broadly similar, and will include an adult credit for single people and those who are married, a child credit and a child care tax credit to help with child care costs. The structure of the new tax credits reflects the priority that the Government attach to getting those who are out of work into work, and keeping them in work and on the ladder of job opportunity.
Another significant discouragement to work is the poverty trap, which arises when the combination of tax and the withdrawal of benefits gives rise to very high marginal tax rates. The working families tax credit alone will therefore ease the poverty trap by reducing the marginal rates for more than 500,000 families who currently receive family credit.
Both the working families tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit will be administered by the Inland Revenue on their introduction in October 1999. From April 2000, they will be paid in the main by employers through the wage packet. For working families tax credit, couples will have the right to elect to whom the credit is paid—the man or the woman.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Is the Minister able to tell us whether some of the moneys

for which we will be voting tonight will assist the Government in contemplating whether that choice will be available only to married couples, or also to people who are living in relationships that are technically outside marriage?

Dawn Primarolo: The Bill is to assist in the development of the detail, planning and consultation that will be necessary in building on family credit, taking its best elements and transferring them to the working families tax credit. Since the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable on these issues, I am sure that he understands that the consultation and detailed work on answering the many questions, including the one that he has posed, needs to be clarified, so that, when the Bill is fully scrutinised, all necessary consultation and preparation has been undertaken. The House is being asked to agree that work can start on development of the proposals.
Having described in some detail the structure that we propose for the tax credits, I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the extent of the work involved in preparing for the introduction of such a scheme, and the many, many questions that need to be answered. Given the improvement that the scheme will provide for a range of people on low incomes, it is absolutely essential that it works efficiently and effectively from the start.
Computer systems and processes need to be designed and ready to begin on the date of the introduction of the working families and disabled persons tax credits. That cannot be done overnight—hence the importance of starting the work as soon as possible.
In order to build on the success of family credit, it is clearly vital that the Inland Revenue work closely with the Department of Social Security, and that both Departments start work straight away to develop the necessary business processes—thereby providing another example of closer working between Government Departments. Until the legislation introducing the working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit has been sanctioned by Parliament, the costs for these aspects of development work are outside the current accounting remit of both the Departments involved—hence the need for the Bill, to allow them to spend money preparing for the introduction of the tax credits.
That authority is essential to enable the development work to begin, so as to meet the timetable for introduction set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech; and so as to answer the many questions that hon. Members continue to pose about the working of the tax credits.
The Government expect that the programme of tax and benefits reform to make work pay will, like the new deals, help people to move off welfare and into work. The working families tax credit and the disabled persons tax credit are central to that programme, and the work on their development is essential to its success. The Bill will enable that vital work to go ahead. I therefore commend it to the House, and ask hon. Members to support it.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I declare the interests registered in my name in the Register.
The Bill is a rather curious and sudden afterthought. It was the Financial Secretary who, launching the Finance Bill, told us that the Bill would take forward the 1998


Budget measures to reform the tax and benefits system. We of course looked at the Finance Bill, but could find in it nothing about the working families tax credit. Now we are told that there are to be two further Bills—

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I was surprised to hear him say that he declared the interests in his name in the Register. I should have thought that insufficient; if he has an interest to declare, he should declare it in the House, not refer hon. Members to the Register. I hope that this is a matter of principle, not just of semantics.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) has declared his interests. If they are of special interest to any Member, they can be immediately looked at in the Register.

Mr. Fallon: There appear to be two Bills involved: this Bill as a paving measure, and another one to be presented next year.
I described this Bill as a sudden afterthought. It could have been introduced last year. The basic structure of the working families tax credit was known last autumn. It seems to us that the Financial Secretary is leaving it very late to get a new system in place before October 1999.
We Conservatives welcome any measures to continue the progress we made towards easing the poverty trap, and improving the position of those on marginal rates. There is nothing wrong in principle with replacing benefits by credits—provided the new system is simple to operate; that it is easy to understand; that it does not impose excessive and unnecessary costs on business; and that it does not cut across the principle of independent taxation which we introduced when in government.
The working families tax credit, we believe, is going to fail a number of those tests. It will be an administrative nightmare for employers. There will be paperwork—from the recipient to the Revenue, from the Revenue to the employer, from the employer to the employee. The new system will cost millions to implement.
A number of extra costs will be incurred in introducing the tax credit, including the cost of moving the advantage further up the scale, and improving take-up. However, we are primarily concerned about costs to the employer and to the public purse.
On Budget day, we were told—I quote from the press release—that the measure was "good news for employers", but it now turns out that employers will have to do much of the work. They will have to check whether new employees are entitled to the working families tax credit and whether the certificate—or amendment to the tax code—that new employees bring with them has been correctly notified to the Revenue. That is one thing for personnel departments, but quite another for smaller businesses.
Employers will also have to know things that they did not have to know—and certainly do not want to know—about their employees. Why should companies have to find out what their employees' partners or spouses earn? Why should they have to know how many children there are in a household?
I draw the attention of the House to the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Social Security—in appendix H of its report—by the Institute of Directors:
No employer will want to have to collect that information. Furthermore, many employees will be reluctant to supply such information to their employers. Claimants currently supply the information to the Benefits Agency only on the clear understanding that it will not go any further.
The Bill will take the tax man and the employer into completely new areas.
The measure will mean huge changes to the pay-as-you-earn system. Recipients of the new credit will often have higher net pay than gross pay. There will also be a considerable cash flow loss to employers and a cash flow advantage to the Government—happily for them. That can be illustrated by the simple fact that net pay will be increased and paid out at the end of the month, whereas the tax and national insurance contributions, which are paid on the 19th of the following month, will decrease. Does the Financial Secretary accept that that is the case? Will employers be compensated in any way for the cash flow damage they will suffer?
As well as costs to the employer, there will be huge costs to Government. The Budget press release said that the merging of the systems would produce better service and better compliance, and that the removal of the duplication of effort would increase efficiency. However, we now learn that there will be a huge cost, not increased efficiency—£15 million to £20 million will have to be spent simply on turning the Contributions Agency into part of the Inland Revenue. Will the Financial Secretary say whether the proposal will bring net administrative savings when it is fully implemented?
Will the Financial Secretary give us a breakdown of the £15 million to £20 million that she is asking Parliament for? She spoke rather airily of computer systems, but the sums she mentioned could not purchase many of those. How much is to be spent on computer systems, and how much on restructuring the Contributions Agency?
The Government said that 200 jobs might disappear. Six weeks on from that initial estimate, perhaps the Financial Secretary could confirm the figure of 200 jobs lost countrywide in the combined organisation, and tell us whether she rules out compulsory redundancies. It may be difficult to find the necessary retirements and resignations.

Dawn Primarolo: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. In the preparation for the working families tax credit, we are talking about the family credit unit, not the Contributions Agency, although that is associated with the work. The points about the transfer of the Contributions Agency into the Inland Revenue have been answered in detail to the hon. Members whose constituents are involved. The subject is not relevant to this debate, but I will be happy to send to the hon. Gentleman the information that I sent to all those hon. Members about the Contributions Agency.

Mr. Fallon: Unfortunately, the subject is relevant to the debate, because, as part of the new arrangement, the Contributions Agency is to be brought inside the Inland Revenue, with the loss of 200 jobs. It would be useful to the House if the Financial Secretary would confirm whether those jobs are at risk.

Dawn Primarolo: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? I realise that this is an important issue, but it is not connected with the paving Bill or with the development


of the working families tax credit. He is talking about a decision taken by the Government concerning operational efficiency, and I will be happy to send him the relevant information; but he should not confuse it with this debate.

Mr. Fallon: That is an interesting comment, because it is not simply a matter of operational efficiency. The press release referred to a new operation that will achieve a better service and better compliance, combining the tax and benefits system with the credit system. However, if the Financial Secretary intends to write to us with the details of the proposed job losses, that will be helpful.
An argument about the classification of the working families tax credit has been raging inside and outside Government, and in Select Committees, for about two months, and it is about time it was cleared up. The Red Book said that the classification was still to be determined. There is not much dispute between us that, in national accounting terms, 80 per cent. of the credit can be classified as public spending and 20 per cent. as a tax cut.
The argument concerns how one reports the net taxation figure. Has it has been agreed with the Office for National Statistics whether the working families tax credit can legitimately be scored for taxation purposes at 100 per cent.?
While we are on the subject of classification, perhaps the Financial Secretary could also tell us whether she accepts the Social Security Select Committee's recommendation that it would be helpful if the Treasury reported annually on the tax forgone as an element of the working families tax credit.
On the working families tax credit, we need answers to questions that the Financial Secretary has suggested remain unresolved. From the moment the tax credit was announced, Conservative Members asked again and again whether, if the man were the principal earner, the woman would have a veto. We were told that she sometimes would, but now we are told that the Revenue will develop the details of the new scheme over the coming months. Will the Financial Secretary say whether the Revenue will lay down rules to deal with disagreements?
The Paymaster General helpfully wrote to me on that point on 20 April:
The details of the new scheme, including the rules for dealing with particular situations such as disagreements between partners, will be developed by the Inland Revenue over the coming months.
We must ask why the tax man has been drawn into disputes—perhaps across the breakfast table—between partners. Should we really allocate that role to the Inland Revenue?
Perhaps the Financial Secretary will answer more fully than she did when she answered the question of the Chairman of the Social Security Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), about who would receive the credit. At one point we were told it would be the woman. Then we were told it would be the spouse. Now, I have been told by the Paymaster General that that is not so. His letter goes on:
The present presumption is that this would normally be paid to the partner who mainly cared for the children.
That is not what we were told during the Budget debates. It raises difficulties about the veto that was originally promised to the woman. Will the Financial Secretary tell

us who is right? Will the woman in a relationship have a veto if the man is the main earner, or will it be up to the Revenue, and its rules, to decide who mainly cares for the children?
I can foresee some dispute arising over that. Men may argue that they care for their children in different ways, such as going out to work to bring home the bacon, rather than sitting at home looking after them. We must be clearer about whether women have the veto. If they do, it would be interesting to hear from the Financial Secretary whether women will be advised of that. Will the Government advertise to ensure that women know that they have a veto, or do the Financial Secretary and her colleagues hope that not all women will exercise the veto, because the benefit could then be classified not as a benefit, but as a tax reduction, which would assist their figures considerably?
I have put a number of questions to the Financial Secretary. I hope that she will be able to answer them, but, if she cannot do so tonight, it would be helpful if she did so before we go into detailed debate in Committee.
Successfully introducing the working families tax credit will require a great deal of good will and co-operation, not only across the Floor of the House, but among employers. The earlier the draft rules and details can be made available, and the fuller the consultation, the easier it will be for business.
This is not a simple matter, and it is not true that employers will face a simple adjustment to their pay-as-you-earn systems. If the credit is not introduced efficiently and effectively, not only will employers face additional costs, but a stigma will still attach to employees.
For example, two potential employees may be chasing one vacancy, one with the working families tax credit and one without. The one who has the credit on his or her tax code may lose out, because the employer, knowing all the extra costs of administering the new tax credit, prefers to choose the candidate who will not require alteration to the various payment systems.
There are therefore many difficulties ahead in the introduction of the working families tax credit. I urge Ministers to consult business as widely and thoroughly as possible. In the end, as with so much else prepared by the Government, the cost will fall on business if the gains that the Government see in the proposal are to be fully realised.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to take part in this brief debate. It is important that consultations take place on the working up of the detail of this policy. It is a brand new area of public policy. The Government's intentions are sound, but as Chairman of the Select Committee, I have to say that the detail is not straightforward and simple. The devil will be in the detail. The intention of the policy could be thwarted if we do not get the detail right.
The Government are right to make proper provisions, not only for business. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) was right. Serious concern was expressed by the Institute of Directors and others about the policy. Consultation is essential. The Financial Secretary will probably be aware that the Select Committee proposes a


third phase of our inquiry into the integration of tax and benefits. We shall look specifically at the implementation phase. If Treasury Ministers and officials can assist in that process, that will be helpful to us. Mr. Martin Taylor, who has done so much of the thinking about the issue, has agreed to come back. If we can resolve all the complicated issues such as who gets the choice within a partnership after consultation, it will be in everyone's interests. They are not easy issues. Sometimes one has to make balanced judgments, but we must not rush the thing. We must get it right if the policy is to be of service to the people whom it is designed to serve.
I want to make a couple of points about House of Commons issues. I am nervous about the Bill. If Ministers introduce spending Bills such as this in anticipation of the approval of the House of the principal policy, they may set a precedent. I am extremely nervous about such a device. It takes for granted the decisions that the House of Commons will take when the principal legislation is introduced. As I have explained, a lot of the devil is in the detail, and if the detail cannot be resolved, the House may conclude, even though it supports the principle, that the outstanding problems are so complex that the principle is not worth pursuing.
It is a bit presumptuous of Ministers to assume that the House will give almost retrospective authority once the money is spent. It cannot be a positive outcome for anyone if we spend £15 million to £20 million of taxpayers' money in advance of the approval of the House and the House withholds its approval by rejecting the Second Reading of the main Bill.

Mr. Fallon: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has studied clause 1(2), which gives the Government authority to spend the money whether or not Parliament subsequently approves the principal legislation. That in itself is a considerable innovation.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Gentleman makes the point more effectively than me. I am puzzled because the Minister seems to be shaking her head. My understanding is that the money will start to be spent from Royal Assent of the Bill. A computer system will be bought, applications will be put on to the hardware, and the system will start. If the Bill to introduce the working families tax credit fails to secure a Second Reading in the House, that money will not be recoverable. It will have gone. We had better be clear about this. The House of Commons is spending money in anticipation of the Government's success in getting the legislation through the House of Commons at a subsequent date.
All that I am saying to the Government is that the Bill could establish a precedent that might be available to less sensible Governments. In the wrong hands, ideas of this kind could be dangerous. I want the House and the Minister to understand that we should not give casual approval to the Bill. Such a device could be used for not merely £20 million but £200 million or £2,000 million if it came to it. I want some assurance that the Bill is really necessary.
Why cannot the Government bring forward a supplementary estimate—a device that Governments have used in the past? Perhaps that is difficult for the Government, because the working families tax credit is a new public policy area. If that is the reason for not using a supplementary estimate, why cannot the contingency fund be used to finance the project?
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks was getting confused. He was into the territory of national insurance funds. The Government have control of expenditure from national insurance contributions. The Bill would spend taxpayers' money, which is separate and distinct. If the money is needed—we have listened to the explanations that the Minister has given —I cannot understand why it cannot be raised from the contingency reserve. Such money could subsequently be paid back after the House approved the Second Reading of the principal legislation in the next Parliament.
Lots of things start occurring to me that worry me. Does the Bill produce money for the working families tax credit and no other, or are we devising systems that could be used for future tax credits? The Government have made clear their intention to introduce the working families tax credit, but does the £20 million produce a system that can then be used for other and better purposes, to introduce tax credits of which we have not yet heard? I am not saying that I would be against such tax credits, but I would be concerned if that happened.
It also worries me that the Bill is being introduced so fast. The Queen's Speech is the appropriate vehicle for the primary legislation that will put the substantive system in place. The Queen's Speech will be in October, and the legislation could be on the statute book with Royal Assent by the end of this calendar year. So all that we are winning from the £15 million to £20 million is a few short months. What is the rush? I would much rather take it slowly and get it absolutely right.
The Chancellor is a brave man. He likes to have a reputation for eating problems, and I am in favour of that in certain circumstances, but I would rather take the matter at a pace that was do-able. We should get the policy in place in an intelligible and workable way rather than rush at it, grab £20 million now, rush off to Tottenham Court road, buy a computer system and start beavering away. I should like to think that the process was a little more deliberative than that. I am obviously being facetious to make the point, but the timetable is not set in stone. The Chancellor bravely and grandly announced that the implementation date would be October 1999, but I have to ask questions about whether we should not be more sensible about the timetable.
If the Government came back and said, "We would rather have another six months or a year to get the advantages of the policy, because we are persuaded that we can get it right in that time," they would not have any difficulty from me. The Government should think seriously about that.
I should also like to know a wee bit more about the £15 million to £20 million. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said, rather grandly, that £20 million does not buy much of a computer system. It is certainly time that we bought some of the benefits offices a better computer system, if that will mean that the benefits are produced in better order. Obviously some training will be required, but we are talking about professional staff and members of the civil service bureaucracy who already know how the systems work. There is not a great deal of difference between staff at the family credit unit at Preston and their Inland Revenue colleagues, so there will be no great culture shock involved in their training, even though it is possible to get quite a lot of training for £15 million to £20 million. It will not, in fact, be possible to do a great deal with that money between now and December,


which is when there will be a money resolution accompanying the substantive legislation. We need to know more about what the £15 million to £20 million is to be spent on.
We need to be reassured that some of the money will be spent on determining how this brand new policy will affect self-employed people and the business community. We also need to know what the take-up rates will be. I assume that the tax credit will have to be applied for in the same way as family credit, but there has been some misunderstanding of that point: there was a widespread assumption that, because it is a tax credit, take-up rates will automatically be improved because the tax system does not require applications to be made. In addition, we have to make sure that we do not lose some of the advantages of the current family credit system, such as the whole process and edifice of appeals standing behind the family credit system and the six-months carry-over once the benefit is in payment.
All those issues are crucial to the successful introduction of the new policy, and I hope that the Government will hasten slowly in order to get the system right. I am extremely nervous that the Bill is a symptom of the introduction of the policy being rushed. My last point, to return to where I started, is that the Government must be careful not to take the House of Commons for granted by introducing Standing Order No. 50 Bills of this sort. I shall be content only if I get a cast-iron assurance from the Minister that the device will not be used in future, unless it is absolutely essential in the long term for the promotion of public policy. If we get assurances on some of the issues that I mentioned, the Select Committee, too, will be reassured, and we can continue the arguments as the development of the policy unfolds.

Mr. David Ruffley: In our scrutiny of the Bill, we should remember that it is a paving Bill for a piece of legislation that will be introduced later this year. Many of us think that its provisions should have formed part of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, because the working families tax credit was the centrepiece of the Budget statement. When one ponders that, one realises why the Bill is now to be a social security Bill introduced in the autumn: it is because the working families tax credit had an unhappy start, mired in confusion. It is no surprise to Conservative Members to see the Government kicking it into the long grass and deciding to introduce the more detailed legislation later in the year.
That confusion was seen most spectacularly in the recasting of the Red Book numbers, which the Financial Secretary had to announce in a written answer published on 27 March. Hon. Members will remember that tables B5, B8, B9 and B24 in the Red Book were substantially recast as a result of an error, which related to the fact that 0.3 per cent. of gross domestic product was estimated to be the value of income tax credits, whereas the true number produced by the Financial Secretary was 0.8 per cent. of GDP. That was a colossal blunder, in the order of £15 billion over the years to 2002–03. The confusion has not really been cleared away, despite the publication of that written answer, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out,

the Office for National Statistics does not appear to be entirely clear about what percentage of the working families tax credit will be scored as negative tax revenue; we do not know whether 100 per cent. will be so scored.
That is a tremendously important issue, and I should like the Financial Secretary to give a specific answer to that question. When the hon. Lady speaks on this technical issue, she always relies on the precedent of mortgage interest relief at source and how that is scored. She fobs off all our questions with words to the effect that MIRAS is the route that we shall take when scoring working families tax credit in the national accounts, but that is not an adequate answer. I should like to know what discussions she, other Ministers, or officials at the Treasury have had with the director of the ONS on that specific question. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has asked that question and I asked it in a recent debate, less than two months ago. The debate on the paving Bill is an appropriate time to get a direct answer to that direct, detailed and specific question.
I have a second question that is deserving of a specific and simple response, which is whether the Financial Secretary is minded to accept the recommendation that the Select Committee on Social Security made in its pre-Budget report, that the Government should report annually to Parliament about the effects of any tax forgone arising from the introduction of the working families tax credit. I have asked two specific questions, and we should like to hear two specific answers from the Financial Secretary when she winds up the debate.
When we examine the details of this paving Bill, it is worth asking to what extent the initial expenditure will alleviate the clear and manifold problems that have already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, in the context of the burdens, complications and new complexities that will be encountered by businesses—especially small businesses—in their PAYE calculations. It is clear that employers will be under new obligations to check the status of new employees and that they will encounter new complications when calculating weekly or monthly pay packets. I wonder whether the work being done by the Treasury, the Department of Social Security and the Inland Revenue specifically addresses those problems, which are all too apparent to those who bother to look at the issues and talk to business men and businesses, which I am sure the Government do. 1 wonder to what extent the initial expenditure that will be legitimated by the paving Bill will be helpful to businesses.
I want also to raise the extent to which the Inland Revenue is sufficiently tooled up to handle the child-related issues arising from the payment of tax credits to families. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made that point well during the Budget debate when he said:
The Inland Revenue does not know anything about children."—[Official Report, 23 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 67.]
It has no experience of such payments. He pondered the lack of appropriateness of the Inland Revenue getting involved in such a payments system, which we all know is nothing more than an elaborate and highly expensive rebadging of family credit.
The grandiloquent claims made by the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor have not been supported to our satisfaction. I fear that the £15 million to £20 million


of expenditure that is the subject of the paving Bill will do little to alleviate the apparent structural deficiencies in the working families tax credit regime as it was set out in the Budget.
Chief among our concerns is the new stigma that will undoubtedly attach to many claimants of the working families tax credit. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way, but I shall not respond to sedentary interventions.

Mr. Frank Roy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that for its recipients there is already a stigma attached to family credit?

Mr. Ruffley: I am delighted to respond to that point. I remember that when Lord Lawson introduced family credit in the 1980s, one of the arguments adduced by the then Labour Opposition was that it would be seen as a top-up and used as an excuse by unscrupulous employers to pay low wages. That never came to pass. There is no evidence that a stigma was attached to family credit or that it was used by employers to drive down wages. No serious commentator would accept that.
However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks has pointed out, under the new regime, businesses will receive information to which they ought not to have access.

Mr. Fallon: They do not want it.

Mr. Ruffley: Nor do they want it, as my hon. Friend points out. That is worrying. I have spoken to business men in my constituency, who say that many of their staff, in the pay-roll section and elsewhere, will have direct knowledge of what Mr. Smith, Miss Jones and Mrs. Jones are earning. There is certainly stigma attached to that. This is not a stigma-free measure, as Treasury Ministers would have us believe, but the reverse.
The chief structural problem with the measure, which has already been alluded to, is the purse-to-wallet argument. I have no desire to run around that track again—the arguments are well known and well understood. The questions have been posed many times, but unfortunately the answers are not so well known. I look to the Financial Secretary to provide a simple answer to a question that Conservative Members and independent commentators have been asking for some time. Will the woman partner in a household or family be able to veto any decision on who should receive or claim the working families tax credit?
We have a selection of questions for the Financial Secretary and a genuine concern that the expenditure that is the subject of the paving Bill may not be adequate to tackle the administrative problems that will be faced by businesses and, arguably, the Inland Revenue—the machinery of government issues. We may be permitted to be sceptical about the answer to that point. In that spirit of honest inquiry, I conclude my remarks.

Dawn Primarolo: I am not sure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must seek leave of the House.

Dawn Primarolo: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your guidance. I seek the leave of the House to reply to the questions put to me by the hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Bury St. Edmunds seem unable to agree. One claimed that he was not sure whether we needed the Bill or any of the money involved and the other complained that we had not asked for enough money to do the work.
I listened carefully to the points made by the three hon. Members who spoke, and I shall do my best to respond. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks said that the system should be simple to operate and easy to understand, that there should be no extra burdens on business and that independent taxation should not be breached. I agree. We need to consult about making the system simple to operate and easy to understand, and about the impacts on business, to which the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred.
Hon. Members have to understand that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask detailed questions and insist on consultation and then not provide the Departments concerned with the tools to conduct the consultation. We need the paving Bill because the expenditure is outside the currently agreed vote for those Departments, and we need parliamentary agreement to authorise the work to develop the tax which hon. Members and the Government clearly want to be conducted. By introducing the paving Bill, we are following the correct legislative route for the somewhat unusual circumstances whereby two Departments are required to work closely together.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Lady is responding to the point made by another hon. Member, and by me. Our query is not with the paving Bill. I understand that the hon. Lady does not have the authority within the Department's current vote to incur this expenditure. Our query concerns the fact that nothing in the Bill makes it dependent on subsequent legislation. Clause 1(2) says that the powers
shall be exercisable whether or not Parliament has given any approval".
We want to establish that this is not a paving Bill because there is nothing in it to limit the expenditure to subsequent approval by Parliament through another Bill.

Dawn Primarolo: The paving Bill will provide for the two Departments to spend money to conduct the necessary development work for the introduction in the next Session of legislation to enshrine in detail the workings of the working families tax credit. That money would be subject to exactly the same accountabilities, through the accounting officers, as is all expenditure through any Government Department.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks is trying to turn this into a chicken-and-egg argument. How are we to ensure that the legislation is drafted to the high standards that we all want, having answered the questions that have been raised relating to business and individuals, if we are not to be given authority to conduct the work? If it fell inside the current vote application of the Inland Revenue, the paving Bill would not be required, but it is, because it is about accountability of expenditure through Departments.


The Bill is not a devious tactic by the Government; it is necessary to allow Parliament to give its authority to spend the money.
Several questions were asked about—

Mr. Fallon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No; I want to answer the questions that have been asked in this short debate. There will be other opportunities for discussion in Committee and on Report.
A series of questions was asked about which member of a couple would receive the tax credit. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked about that in an intervention, and I apologise if I did not give a clear enough answer; I shall try again. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the family credit form and knows that family credit need not be paid to the woman; the order book may be cashed by either partner. Therefore, we have said that the couple can choose to which partner the tax credit is paid.
We were asked what would happen if there was a disagreement. At this stage, our answer is that, when a couple cannot agree, the presumption would be that the credit would normally be paid to the partner who mainly cared for the children. Fifty-seven per cent. of main earners receiving family credit are women, and women are 60 per cent. of wage earners in the families that receive family credit. The fact that the problem has been grappled with in the family credit system has helped us to refine points about what we shall do when there is a disagreement. Consultation is now necessary to ensure that the principle is carried into practice.

Mr. Kirkwood: I know that this is difficult territory, but I was asking a slightly different question—about whether marriage made a difference.

Dawn Primarolo: I was coming to that point. The hon. Gentleman asked whether cohabiting couples will have the same choice as married couples of which partner receives the working families tax credit; the answer is yes. I should have used a much shorter answer last time.
I make it clear to the hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Bury St. Edmunds, who asked a series of questions about employers, that employers will not collect the information. Employees will claim from the Inland Revenue. The Revenue will inform the employer of how much working families tax credit is payable. The employer will not have to calculate the working families tax credit and will not be told separately of the number of children or the partner's income. I have said that repeatedly, as clearly and succinctly as possible.

Mr. George Mudie (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Beyond peradventure.

Dawn Primarolo: Beyond peradventure.
Questions were asked regarding employers' cash flow. I can tell the hon. Member for Sevenoaks that procedures are already in place to deal with similar situations regarding statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. Obviously, we need to consult employers to discover

whether similar procedures would be appropriate for the tax credit, and how best to administer payments in those circumstances. That is another example of the need for the paving Bill.
The hon. Member for Sevenoaks asked why, as two Bills were necessary, we could not have passed the Bill last year. We could not have done so last year because the Chancellor's firm decision on the working families tax credit was announced in the Budget on 17 March 1998. The Bill before us was the first opportunity to proceed. It will allow us to do the preparatory work. I should also explain that the Finance Bill is not the vehicle; the Finance Bill is limited to measures that raise revenue, or that are associated with their administration. Frankly, I thought that everyone in the House understood, especially experienced Members of the House, and especially one hon. Member who has been advising the Treasury and another who is now a Treasury spokesperson.

Mr. Fallon: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I shall make this point on the Office for National Statistics before I give way.
A question was asked about the Office for National Statistics and classifications. Necessary discussions are continuing with the Office for National Statistics. Hon. Members may think that it is undesirable that they have not concluded, but the difference between the Conservative Government, who were defeated, and ours, who were elected, is that we genuinely engage in consultation and seek to achieve agreement.

Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: I give way to the hon. Member for Sevenoaks, to whom I said that I would give way.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Lady has moved on from the subject that I wanted to ask her about. We were not the only ones who said that these measures should have been in the Finance Bill —she did. She said in a press release that the Finance Bill would
take forward the 1998 Budget measures to reform the tax and benefit system".
It is no use if the hon. Lady says, "We do not know what should be in the Finance Bill." That was a quotation from her.

Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman does not really want to know why we need a paving Bill, and what the working families tax credit would do. He constantly claims to support it, then finds reasons to knock it down. During the debate, I have tried to be as clear as I possibly can be at this stage in the development of policy, and to be open with the House about the current position. I have answered the questions, in particular about the issues that are being raised by—

Mr. Ruffley: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I shall not give way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress. He had


plenty of time to speak, and he made his arguments. He demands the answers to questions and then does not want to wait for the answers.
The expenditure that is requested in the paving Bill is to cover the costs of preparing to introduce the working families tax credit and the disability tax credit, with the authority of Parliament, when that piece of legislation passes. It covers, mainly, information technology changes; the provision to the public of information about the new tax credits; the advertising that might be necessary; how we ensure proper take-up of the working families tax credit; and the development of consultation with interested agencies and consultation on the business process side and on the training of staff.

Mr. Kirkwood: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Hon. Members appear to be saying that we have not asked for enough money. We are confident that we have asked the House for the money that we need to develop this proposal.

Mr. Kirkwood: I understand that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but I am filled with apprehension if she is saying that she proposes to advertise the merits of the benefit publicly before the House has a chance to approve it. That is what I understood her to say.

Dawn Primarolo: If I have given that impression, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. I was speaking about the development work to ensure proper take-up. In his encouraging and helpful contribution, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the need to deal with take-up. We must do that now. He also asked why we needed the paving Bill, and cautioned against taking the House of Commons for granted. I entirely agree.
I explained that, because the matter is outside the vote of the two Departments, the Bill is necessary. The expenditure arises from the working families tax credit and disabled persons tax credit, but the work will assist the Departments. It will be a learning experience for them in various respects, particularly in working closely together and examining how they administer their respective systems.
The hon. Members for Sevenoaks and for Bury St. Edmunds suggested that it might be helpful if the Treasury reported annually to Parliament on the tax

forgone as a result of the working families tax credit. That was part of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security chaired by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
The Government will shortly respond in the proper way, as would be expected, to the Select Committee report and recommendations. We recognise the importance of keeping Parliament fully informed. The cost of the tax credits has already been published, and the tax forgone because of the working families tax credit will likewise be published.

Mr. Ruffley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dawn Primarolo: No.

Mr. Ruffley: She is running scared.

Dawn Primarolo: In replying to the debate, I am not interested in responding to the silly little points made by some Opposition Members in order to disrupt the business. I am interested in explaining to the House why we require the paving legislation, why the consultation is necessary, and how we shall then be able to answer even the questions of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, if he will just be a little more patient and open-minded. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Question agreed to. Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TAX CREDITS (INITIAL EXPENDITURE) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Tax Credits (Initial Expenditure) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Question agreed to.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 2

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POLICE AUTHORITY

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 18, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'.
No. 40, in page 1, line 20, leave out 'Service' and insert 'Department'.
Government amendments Nos. 4 and 28 to 31.

Mr. Ingram: For ease of reference I propose to deal first with Government amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31, then I shall deal with amendments Nos. 39 and 40, which have been tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
The House will be aware that the word civilian is used to describe staff who are employed in support of the police. The term currently used in the Bill is correct, and it is used for the same purpose in the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1980, but in view of the particular significance of language in Northern Ireland I accept that further clarification might be desirable.
The matter was raised on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, column 52, by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who pointed out that the clause as drafted implies that members of the police force and traffic wardens are not civilians. That is clearly not the case. Although I believe that most people in Northern Ireland will recognise the distinction that use of the term civilian seeks to make, there is scope for further clarification.
Having considered the hon. Gentleman's comments in Committee and consulted the parliamentary draftsman, I have concluded that the phrase "police service staff' more accurately reflects the situation. It is important that everyone realises that all those who work in the Northern Ireland police service, both Royal Ulster Constabulary officers and the staff who assist them, are civilians. The amendments that I have tabled simply seek to reinforce that point, and I commend them to the House.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 would change the name of the new single service that the Bill creates to the Northern Ireland Police Department. The amendments were originally tabled for consideration in Committee by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who usually speaks for his party on Northern Ireland issues. We send our best wishes to him after his rather serious accident. We know that he is doing his best to get well enough to return to the House and make his contribution and that he regrets having missed the debate, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will do full justice to the argument that he would have advanced.
Although the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, his amendments were moved and fully discussed on 12 February 1998, Official Report, Standing Committee B, columns 90-100. They were rejected when the Committee divided.
When I addressed the Committee on the matter, I reported that I had received strong representations from many quarters in Northern Ireland about the importance of introducing a service ethos into the police. I remind the House that the Police Authority and the police staff associations were particularly keen to see the word service appear in the Bill.
I know that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will appreciate that the detail of language is particularly important in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will understand, therefore, when I again say that I am not prepared to accept the amendments. Perhaps that is a little presumptuous as I have not yet heard his eloquent argument in support of them, but the matter was fully considered in Committee. I emphasise that the Police Authority and the bodies that represent police interests in Northern Ireland were keen for the concept of service to be written into the Bill.
To recap, both sets of amendments deal with details of language. The time that we have spent on them in the House and in Committee testifies to the importance of the terms used in policing in Northern Ireland. The aim of the Government in introducing the changes that I have just described in amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 28 to 31 and in resisting amendments Nos. 39 and 40 is to emphasise that the RUC and those who work alongside it together constitute a civilian organisation, which continues to serve the community in Northern Ireland efficiently and effectively.

Mr. Phil Willis: It is remarkable to hear the response to the amendments before the argument in support of them has been presented. Many right hon. and hon. Members want to be on their planes and trains fairly early tonight, so I shall be as brief as I can in speaking to the amendments in my name.
I thank the Minister for his comments about my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I can report is making a slow and painful recovery. I shall pass on the Minister's remarks.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 may seem cosmetic to many people—particularly those on mainland Britain. I take the Minister's point about the use of language in Northern Ireland: it is very important. It is difficult for people who do not have Northern Ireland connections to understand how important a single word can be when relaying a particular message.
5.30 pm
This Bill establishes a new era of policing in Northern Ireland. The Liberal Democrats and their sister party in Northern Ireland believe that every attempt should be made to get the substance and the symbolism right. Symbolism is often as important as substance in terms of conveying the correct message. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire said that a large section of the community has little faith in the current policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. He pointed out that that was not a criticism of RUC officers or police personnel, but a statement of fact. In reality,


every police force in the United Kingdom—I do not care whether it is the Metropolitan police or the police force in North Yorkshire—has some concerns and some officers who do not attain the expected standards.
My hon. Friend said that merely changing the name of, or reforming, or even revolutionising the RUC would not lead those who have no faith in that organisation suddenly to change their view. The Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, made that point very effectively in an important article that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 30 April. He said:
To be properly effective it must be conducted as a truly collaborative effort between police and the communities they exist to serve rather than being simplistically considered as something which a provider 'delivers' to a consumer.
The argument about the use of the word service is summed up by Ronnie Flanagan's comments: the police do not simply provide a service to the consumer but are integral to the future of Northern Ireland.
It will be a small, but we believe significant, step to change the name from service to department. The Bill contains several vital steps, but that is important also. The new title for the police service in Northern Ireland is one of the most important symbolic steps that we can take. That is why we hope the Minister will reconsider, even at this late stage.
We believe that the Northern Ireland Police Service—which will be known as NIPS—is the wrong title and will send the wrong message. The assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie), laughs about that. The Minister must recognise that that abbreviation is asking for trouble. NIPS has dubious overtones which will cause, at best, mirth and derision and, at worst, offence. The abbreviation is also the same as that of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, which—rightly or wrongly—has a negative association with the past troubles in Northern Ireland.
We propose to create an inclusive Northern Ireland police department, the NIPD. That title has no negative connotations, a very modern ring and perhaps a cross-Atlantic theme. The Government have done much to create a new agenda for Northern Ireland and policing is at its heart; they must not, for the sake of such a small concession, give the new police arrangements a title that may be the object of derogatory comment and association. We ask the Minister to reconsider.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I welcome the Government's amendments. It is crucial that the term civilian is defined properly—especially in view of what has happened in the north of Ireland in the past and what we hope may happen there in the future.
A certain ethos underlines the new agreement that is now known as the Good Friday agreement. That ethos is based on agreement and does not derive in any sense from force, whether legitimate or paramilitary. For that reason, I believed in Committee—as I do now—that it is right to make that distinction and to define the police service as being part of civilian life.
I suppose that one could be churlish and argue about the name. I am particularly attracted to the title Northern Ireland Police Service. I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life and I have never heard the Northern Ireland Prison Service referred to as NIPS—although I have heard it called many things, some of which I would not repeat

in the Chamber. I believe that the effect of the Liberal Democrat amendments would be rather confusing. They would create a Northern Ireland Police Department, so the Bill would refer to that as well as a Northern Ireland Police Service and a Northern Ireland police force. I believe that we should try to ensure that the term service and its meaning are the overriding factors not just in the ethos of policing but in the way in which the police service reflects what I believe will be a new attitude in all sections of the Northern Ireland community.
The Bill does not go as far as I would like—but I did not think it would. With some confidence, I anticipate that, as we proceed down the road to agreement, which is what we shall do, and to peace, which is what we shall certainly achieve, the attitude within the community, the police service and the administration of the police service will move inexorably and consistently towards the concept of service as opposed to the concept of force. For that reason, I believe that the Government's amendments are very welcome.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has noticed that the term police force is used in the Bill. Shall we argue about mere names or shall we go to the heart of the issue: the attempt in this Bill to do away with the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? That is the real push behind the Bill and that is why it is before the House.
We have an agreement the hon. Gentleman says will bring peace. I do not know how releasing, after 24 months, people who were sentenced to two, three or four life sentences and allowing them to keep their arms will bring peace. That seems a strange way of achieving it. The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland think that the Government are being dishonest. They are not telling the people that the Royal Ulster Constabulary is being axed and will be replaced by the Northern Ireland Police Service. That is the thrust of the Bill, and that view was expressed from these Benches last time we discussed the matter.
Unlike other hon. Members, I do not have to catch a plane tonight. I was told that consideration would continue all night, so I made the consequent arrangements. I must apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who served on the Committee. He had to take an early flight back to Northern Ireland as every later flight is booked—and I can understand why. Many people have asked me why I am here today. I am doing what I was sent to do: to oppose the Bill. I shall do that tonight.

Mr. Ingram: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) uses the word oppose, but that is nothing new. Many people believe that that is the way he approaches any elements of progress that appear on the horizon and on which the majority are agreed. That is his democratic right, but there is nothing new in his advising that that is his function this evening.
The hon. Gentleman referred in passing to the use of the term police force. All of us who are associated with a police service would like the word force to be removed, but it occurs throughout a range of legislation and removing it would require much primary legislation. The import of the Bill is that throughout the United Kingdom what in the past has been known as a police force has


now become accepted as a police service. The amendments ensure that the Bill goes a little further in recognising the concept of the civilian element of the police service in its totality, including those who serve as constables and those who act in support of them.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues about the Government's intention about the future of the RUC.I hope that he will accept it when I say that the RUC will remain. It will not be abolished. As recently as yesterday, the Prime Minister made that commitment yet again. The RUC will continue to serve all the people of Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: What will the commission do?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to comment, but he is trying to extend the debate. He may have an opportunity to speak again on later groups of amendments. We can have a reasoned debate, but I shall not respond to shouted interventions. That may be how the hon. Gentleman wishes to operate as a democrat in Northern Ireland, but it is not the custom or the best manners that are expected in this House.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) were welcome. I recognise his acceptance of the Government amendments although he does not believe that they go far enough. However, I am used to that from the hon. Gentleman. When I hear him say that he totally accepts everything that has been said, it will be a major achievement. Perhaps we are only a short way from that on this occasion.
That brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 seek to change service to department. In Scotland, a nip is a whisky. It does not have a pejorative sense there and, because of the Scots-Irish connection, in some parts of Northern Ireland it may be used in the same way, so the acronym NIPS would not be viewed so critically.
The essential point is that it is wrong that those who serve as constables and those who work in support of RUC officers are seen to be different from a department. That is why we have included the word service in the generic title for all those who work in the RUC and in support of it. As I said in my opening remarks, it is because of representations received from those who represent the interests of the RUC, and because the Police Authority wants the word service and the concept of it in the Bill, that we developed the matter in this way. On that basis, I hope that it will be a success.
The matter was debated extensively in Committee. There was a Division and the amendment was comprehensively defeated. If it goes to a Division tonight
I expect that it will be comprehensively defeated again.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time on one group of amendments on Report.

Amendment agreed to

Mr. Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 1, line 20, after 'is', insert impartial.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos.2, 3 and 6 to 15.
Amendment No. 57, in clause 17, page 9, line 24, leave out from 'Authority' to end of line 26 and insert
'may consult the Secretary of State over the plan and consider such amendments to that plan as the Secretary of State may suggest.'.
Government amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Amendment No. 60, in clause 19, page 10, line 45 at end insert
'and shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan.'.
Government amendments Nos. 20 to 24.

Mr. Willis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not fully understanding the rules of the House on Report. I shall take the matter up with my Chief Whip.
I also apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) for referring to him as the assistant Whip, when in fact he is the Deputy Chief Whip. No doubt he will be able to buy me a nip on the way home.
Amendment No. 54 and the string of amendments taken with it are perhaps the most significant of those tabled today. It was interesting to read the Committee's proceedings during the first couple of days, when the need for the term "impartiality" was stressed by virtually every hon. Member. In fact, it became the key word in the Committee's early deliberations.
There was, too, a consensus that we must never return to the abuses of the earlier Stormont regime, particularly the politicised policing. Again, the Committee appeared united on that. That is why impartiality must be the prime criterion for building confidence and judging the success or failure of the Bill.
The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) moved the amendment in Committee, and, to a degree, the Minister accepted the principle of impartiality. However, the Minister's response was that it would be difficult to test impartiality in the courts. He made exactly that point at column 46 of Hansard on 12 February 1998, when he said that the Government were dismissing the issue of impartiality because it would be difficult to enforce in the courts.
That is the point of the amendment. The very basis of the Bill is that impartiality should be seen as its most important element, and that, if necessary, it should be tested in the courts. That, ultimately, is where any Bill is tested. Compared with the words "efficient" and "effective", the word "impartial" has much greater significance. It is possible to test effectiveness and efficiency in the courts, but not impartiality.
The previous Government's White Paper, which was discussed extensively in Committee, went a long way to enshrining the view that legislation should require police officers to uphold the law impartially, and that that should be capable of being challenged, either by the new ombudsman or through the courts. I presume that, before


that White Paper was produced, the previous Government sought a legal opinion on enshrining in law the requirement that an officer's conduct be impartial.
The proposal was welcomed by the Police Authority and by almost all members of the Committee, but rejected by the Government on the basis of not principle but its enforceability in law. The Government are wrong. Impartiality may be a difficult term to frame in legislation, but it is surely one worthy of the Government's best efforts.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: Amendment No. 60, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 19, but it is similar to an amendment to the clause which was discussed at length in Committee. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 all deal with financial matters relating to the funding of the police service through grants to the Police Authority, the keeping of proper accounts, and accountability to the Secretary of State and the public for the expenditure.
The original amendment dealt with novel and contentious equipment. The Minister rejected that at the time on the ground of definition. The purchase of equipment, which we shall discuss later, and the reporting of the Chief Constable to the Police Authority are extremely important.
Clause 17 gives the Police Authority responsibility for establishing an annual policing plan. Although the plan is originally provided in draft form by the Chief Constable, it goes to the Police Authority, which can either adopt it in the form in which it is submitted or amend it after consultation with the Chief Constable. Ultimately, however, the Police Authority takes ownership of the policing plan, and it then comes into the public domain and is transparent for the public to witness.
The Committee debated clause 19 for four and a half hours, allowing half an hour's break for a vote. It was an incredibly long debate, mainly on clause stand part and the amendment in question, and throughout the Minister refused to give way.
However, the Police Authority still feels strongly about that matter. Notwithstanding the contingencies that will have been appropriately built into the policing plan so that the Chief Constable's operational independence and ability to act quickly are not placed in jeopardy, the Police Authority feels that, if a Chief Constable seeks to change the plan during the year of its implementation, it is important that he consults the authority. After all, it will have endorsed, published and taken ownership of the plan.
Amendment No. 60 deals with consultation during the plan's implementation. It seeks to insert in the Bill a requirement for the Chief Constable to say to the Police Authority, "Something extremely serious has happened; this is what I am doing." The Police Authority is then not only informed quickly but has the ability to consult. There may be disagreement, but ultimately we back the Chief Constable's right to make the final decision on operational matters. The authority is still concerned that decisions may be taken without reference to it, which places it in an invidious and difficult position in its relations with the public.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Our consideration of the Bill in Committee was a long

and laborious exercise. The Minister probably hopes that we shall not have the same number or length of interchanges this evening.
It would be churlish not to recognise that, despite their apparent intransigence in Committee, the Government have taken on board a considerable number of our proposals. When we contested the Bill in Committee, our intention was to ensure that the role of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was not diminished. Whatever our experiences before 1970 and subsequently—different people have different perspectives—0we were determined that there should never again be an open-ended arrangement whereby political control or influence could be exercised on the Royal Ulster Constabulary without proper scrutiny. We fought for no more and no less than that.
At times, I may not have been as pleasant to the Minister as I might have been. On this occasion, I make amends—

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Grovelling.

Mr. Maginnis: Grovelling, indeed.
We now have a recognition of the Police Authority's role. This is where my little addendum comes in: I hope that the Minister will see the good sense of completing the job that he undertook in the wake of the Committee stage, and will recognise, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, that there is merit in giving the Police Authority the right to be consulted by the Chief Constable. Clause 19, which says:
In discharging his functions, the Chief Constable
has an obligation
to have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17",
should also say:
and shall consult the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan.
The amendment places no great burden on the Chief Constable. He is simply being asked to ensure that those who stand between him and the public at large—those who represent the public but have an interest in the RUC and its welfare—are kept informed. The amendment is small but significant, and would round off the efforts that the Minister and his Department have made to take on board the issues raised in Committee.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I want to speak briefly in support of amendment No. 60, without making a passing reference to amendment No. 59. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) reminded us that the longest single debate in Committee focused on clause 19. Amendment No. 60 differs from the controversial amendment proposed in Committee, but its underlying purpose is not dissimilar. Like amendment No. 81, it seeks to redress a perceived imbalance in the tripartite structure, and, in so doing, to enhance the role of the Police Authority.
Hon. Members are aware that clause 19 provides, first and foremost, that
The police force shall be under the direction and control of the Chief Constable
and that
the Chief Constable shall have regard to the annual policing plan issued under section 17.


Conservative Members still have problems with the clause. We believe that the concept "shall have regard" is inadequate. The annual policing plan is the property of the Police Authority. It is one of the means—perhaps the main means—whereby people will judge whether the authority is successfully securing an efficient and effective police service in the Province.
It is the Chief Constable's responsibility to deliver the policing plan. He puts into practice the authority's priorities, and seeks to achieve its performance targets and objectives. He must have operational independence in day-to-day policing, but he is tasked with the responsibility of implementing the authority's annual plan.
In Committee, the Government accepted amendment No. 79, which was tabled by the Opposition. The Under-Secretary said:
It recognises that the authority is keen to become more involved in strategic planning and accordingly requires the Chief Constable to take account of the objectives and priorities of the authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 224.]
Amendment No. 60 would have a not dissimilar effect. The authority would have a consultative role as the strategy of the annual plan was implemented. The amendment is therefore consistent with the Government's thinking on other aspects of the Bill.
6 pm
Whether or how the Chief Constable implements the annual plan is a matter of concern to the authority, and legitimately so. Without remotely compromising the Chief Constable's operational autonomy, the authority will want to discuss the implementation of its strategy, and any Chief Constable worth his salt will want to discuss with the authority how he is implementing the strategy.
In Committee, we debated amendment No. 81 at great length—it annoyed and irritated Ministers somewhat. It required the Chief Constable to consult the authority if he deviated substantially from the annual policing plan. Ministers argued that, in those circumstances, the operational independence of the Chief Constable would be undermined. Amendment No. 60 would not do that, by any stretch of the imagination. It merely requires that the Chief Constable
shall consult with the Police Authority during the implementation of that plan.
That is an entirely reasonable proposition.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) expressed our fears when, with some hyperbole, he said:
It seems that everything in the Bill is designed to derogate from the responsibility that the Police Authority should have. Its authority is being reduced and its powers handed directly to the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 247.]
I emphasise that we are not trying to impinge on the operational independence of the Chief Constable, but operational responsibility must be exercised within parameters set by the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the authority. Each has a proper role to play. We argue that the Bill does not assign them their

proper roles. The amendment would achieve a proper role for the authority, which would be consulted by the Chief Constable during the implementation of the annual strategy.

Rev. Ian Paisley: From his reply to my previous speech, the Minister evidently thinks that there is some rule of the House under which English, Welsh or Scottish Members can make sedentary interventions, but that right is refused to Northern Ireland Members.
I draw attention to something that has to do with this and all amendments. The Minister told the House:
The proposals in the Bill are not designed to preclude discussion of policing in the talks. Indeed, the Government have given an undertaking that any agreement reached in the talks on the issues covered in the Bill will be taken on board during the passage of the Bill, if that is practicable. If not, they will be implemented at a later stage."—[Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 46.]
The Minister well knows that a commission is recommended to be set in place to consider policing. Does he think that the people of Northern Ireland will listen to him, when he and the Prime Minister state categorically to one side of the community that there will always be a Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it will never be changed, but then say something, tongue in cheek, to the other side of the society, so that they can say, "Yes, there will be great changes, and the RUC will eventually be done away with"?
Who are we to believe? We do not know what the commission will recommend. It may recommend things that are not before us tonight. In respect of the amendment, it will probably want to say something about police impartiality, and we do not know what will happen when it gives its decision.
I agree with those who have said that people have a great fear that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, as civilians considering the police force, will not have proper authority. There have already been changes in the authority, which have set alarm bells off in certain sections of the community. The freedom of the Chief Constable to do his operational duty must not be impinged on, and the authority must be recognised and its place honoured. That is the force of the argument in the amendments.

Mr. Ingram: I shall deal first with amendment No. 54, which was moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), and then with Government amendments Nos. 3, 17 and 20. I shall then cover Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7; Government amendment No. 2; Government amendments Nos. 8 to 14; amendment No. 57, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough; Government amendments Nos. 15 and 16; amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss); Government amendments Nos. 21 to 23; and Government amendment No. 24. I have set out that structure because we are dealing with subsets of the same general issues, and I want to deal with the arguments in what I hope will be a logical manner.
We had seven debates in Committee and discussed at length a number of amendments that were designed to ensure that the policing of Northern Ireland would be required by statute to be conducted impartially, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said. Some were Government amendments; they have been incorporated into the Bill.


I rejected an amendment similar to amendment No. 54 because the term "impartiality" does not have meaning in statute and therefore adds no genuine safeguard to the fairness and even-handedness of policing in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 54 sets forth a similar provision: its inclusion could be held to fetter the discretion of a constable—the operational officer on the ground—in performing his duty. I believe that those objections remain valid.
However, it was clear from the tone and the weight of the debate in Committee that there was still concern surrounding the issue, and I promised to reconsider it with a view to introducing further changes. I have considered the matter further and believe that I have found a formula that will avoid problems with the specific legal definition of the word "impartiality", but will ensure that statute clearly states that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. That is why I am introducing an amendment to clause 37—Government amendment No. 20—which will require the statement of policing principles issued by the Secretary of State under that clause to include within it the principle that Northern Ireland be policed impartially. I am also introducing Government amendments Nos. 3 and 17, which will require the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to have regard to that statement of principles.
On 12 February, during the second sitting of the Committee—at columns 37 to 51—Government amendments were introduced, which made the Police Authority and the Chief Constable subject to section 19 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That outlaws discrimination by either on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion. I believe that those changes, combined with the Government amendments that I have just described, represent a robust framework for ensuring the impartial policing of Northern Ireland in the future. I commend those amendments to the House and ask hon. Members to reject amendment No. 54.
I shall now deal with Government amendments Nos. 6 and 7. In Committee, there was considerable discussion of clause 10(2)—at column 206 of the seventh sitting. I explained at that time that the purpose of requiring the Chief Constable to send a draft of his estimates to the Secretary of State, as currently required by clause 10(2), was to ensure that the Government received the information necessary to proceed with planning for the next financial year in good time. I was conscious at that time that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland had some concerns that a formal requirement for the Chief Constable to send an estimate to the Secretary of State at such an early stage in the financial cycle, and simultaneously with his dispatch of an estimate to the Police Authority, undermined the Police Authority's role as the body primarily responsible for police finance. I understood that argument.
My view is that the authority's position is effectively safeguarded by clause 10(1), which ensures that it is the authority, and the authority alone, which submits the final estimate to the Secretary of State for the overall funding of policing in Northern Ireland. I believe that the authority's strong representations are based on an unfounded premise, but I have taken them on board, together with the concerns that it has continued to raise in advance of Report stage, that the Bill could be represented by those hostile to it as undermining the authority's position in relation to the overall funding of

policing in Northern Ireland. That point was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire.
I have, therefore, considered the matter further, and held consultations with the Police Authority. We are seeking to put in place other, agreed mechanisms for ensuring that the Secretary of State receives the information required for the Government financial cycle. The Police Authority is co-operating fully with us in constructing those mechanisms. That being the case, I am happy to remove from the Bill the requirement for the Chief Constable to send a copy of his estimates to the Secretary of State. I commend amendments Nos. 6 and 7 to the House.
6.15 pm
I shall now deal with Government amendments No. 2 and 8 to 14. The House will be aware that the objective setting process has, ahead of the introduction of legislation, been operating successfully in Northern Ireland for the past two years. The practice has been that the Secretary of State, in establishing her policing objectives, also sets performance targets commensurate with those objectives. In the drafting of the Bill, the intention is that that practice will continue.
As the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), said in Committee—in the fourth sitting on 24 February, at column 113—the practicalities of the process of objective setting are identical in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, the drafting of the legislation is different. That is because, in England and Wales the Home Secretary is dealing with 43 police authorities, and might wish to set different targets for different authorities. The Police Act 1996 allows the Home Secretary to direct police authorities to set performance targets. Because we have only one authority at present, the Northern Ireland legislation simply allows the Secretary of State to set performance targets in relation to her objectives.
We had considerable discussion—

Mr. Maginnis: I do not want to nit-pick with the Minister, but he said that we have one police authority at present. That phrase will be picked up and misunderstood. Will the Minister, at this early stage, clarify exactly what he means, or was that merely a slip of the tongue?

Mr. Ingram: It was not a slip of the tongue. We are consulting on the mechanisms dealing with this matter. I do not envisage there being more than one police authority in Northern Ireland, but if the democratic voice within Northern Ireland wanted a different mechanism, any Government would have to take that on board. I am not predicting that as a possibility or eventuality, because I do not see that.
I was present last evening when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was talking to representatives of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The chairman of the Police Authority was also present. A clear commitment was given that the authority would continue to represent public opinion within Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) will know that we are currently consulting on the way in which we should construct that authority and allow local communities to have greater interface with it. It is an


important body and it welcomes discussion on those issues. Those are concerns raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I pay tribute to the work done by the Police Authority, and I do not envisage radical change or even a measure of change in that regard in the future.
As I have said, my comment was not a slip of the tongue, but we must consider that the public may demand a different approach. Any democratic body must take that into account.

Mr. Mallon: Like the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), I noted the phrase used by the Minister. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Department produced a paper on policing to be considered within the talks process. One of the options was a movement away from a unitary police authority system. That was presented to the talks as an option not by the Social Democratic and Labour party or by the Ulster Unionist party but by the Minister on behalf of the Government. Is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, has pre-empted decisions that might be made on the basis of a paper prepared for the Minister by his own Department?

Mr. Ingram: I can see that the hon. Gentleman will not be fully happy with this debate. The point being made was that the chairman of the Police Authority asked about the future role of the authority, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear the importance of that authority as a body. We did not discuss the consultative document. I have set out my view of what might be the likely response. If that consultative process results in a significant body of opinion saying, "We want this handled in a different way," we must take account of that. It is fair and reasonable to say that, although we have put out a consultative document, that does not mean that every option within the document is likely to become a reality. Clearly, that could not be so. There could be one police authority or there could be some other structure. I have said that I do not believe that there is likely to be more than one structure, but, as a democrat, I believe that if that is what people want, we must respond in a structured way.
We were dealing with a slightly different issue. As I have said, my use of the phrase "at present" was a specific statement, not a slip of the tongue. The fact that hon. Members have questioned me on that shows that they are listening to the debate. That is always helpful. Every word is being listened to and we must be careful what we say.
We were talking about performance targets and the setting of objectives. We had considerable debate on that in Committee, and it would not be appropriate to re-run that debate now. However, in this instance there were subsequent consultations with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, and he convinced me and my officials that there would be presentational advantages in having our own legislation in Northern Ireland, reflecting as closely as possible the legislation in England and Wales.
Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 will clearly demonstrate that our objective setting process and that in England and Wales are very similar. I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone for his help

in clarifying that specific point. I am convinced that the amendments will clarify the intention of the provisions, so I am sure that they will improve the legislation.
In discussing the changes, I should emphasise that I believe that establishment of key performance targets is a vital tool, which both the authority and the Secretary of State must have at their disposal. I do not think that there is any dissent from that belief, as the principle is good and clear.
I therefore commend Government amendments Nos. 6 to 15 to the House.
I shall deal now with amendment No. 57, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and Government amendments No. 15 and 16, which deal with the Secretary of State's power to require the Police Authority to amend the annual policing plan.
Although I thought that we had addressed every single issue in our debates on the Bill in Committee, we did not touch on that particular issue. However, it was raised by the Police Authority in subsequent discussions. The point was made that, in that regard, the Bill differs markedly from equivalent legislation in England and Wales, and that that could be presented as detracting from the Police Authority's ownership of the annual policing plan.
I should emphasise that there are good reasons for the original drafting of the legislation. The Secretary of State provides all funding for policing in Northern Ireland, and therefore has a crucial interest in the financial matters covered by the plan. Nevertheless, following discussions with the authority, we have agreed arrangements that will safeguard the Secretary of State's position in those matters.
Therefore—that being the case, and accepting the authority's view that there are clear presentational advantages in making the amendments—I am happy to change the clause, to bring it more into line with legislation governing policing plans in England and Wales, while continuing to take into account Northern Ireland's specific situation. I believe that the changes take on board the thrust of amendment No. 57, and therefore ask the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough not to press it.
I should like now to deal with amendment No. 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members. As he said, and as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone repeated, the amendment seeks to place in statute a requirement on the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority during implementation of the policing plan.
I fully agree with the principle behind the amendment, and strongly believe that the Chief Constable and the Police Authority would be failing in their duty to the people of Northern Ireland if they were not to consult closely over the annual policing plan during the year in which it is in operation. However, the mechanisms for ensuring that consultation occurs should be worked out as part of the Bill's implementation, and there is no need for a specific provision in statute on that point.
I should explain that a provision such as that in amendment No. 60 could imply prior discussions—which is how consultation could be interpreted-that could delay vital operational decisions, thereby fettering the Chief Constable's operational independence. I realise that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment do not want that to happen.
Consultation, by its very nature, requires prior discussions. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone mentioned matters of importance that might have to be dealt with by the Chief Constable. If the amendment were passed, the Chief Constable would have to consult on such matters before acting, whereas he might want to act quickly. Furthermore, what would happen if those who were to be consulted said no to the matter under consultation? We discussed the ramifications of such a situation in Committee.
Although it would be wrong to establish arrangements such as those proposed in the amendment, we have to create mechanisms for a consultative process, to deal with the normal raft of changes that may arise. We are therefore seeking to establish working groups to implement the legislation's key aspects. I hope that the working group to consider that specific issue will be established soon.
I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the new arrangements on the policing plan work effectively once the Bill is enacted.
There is another safeguard in ensuring the Chief Constable's accountability. Should the Police Authority feel that the mechanisms are not functioning adequately, under clause 48(3), it can call for a report on any matter from the Chief Constable. The Police Authority will therefore have mechanisms by which it can consult the Chief Constable. If it is still not happy, it will be able to use the report mechanism.
I therefore do not think that including amendment No. 60 in the Bill will be helpful. Moreover, as the provision might in future be wrongly interpreted, it could fetter the Chief Constable's independence—which I am sure that the hon. Members who tabled the amendment would not wish to happen.
Government amendment Nos. 21 to 23 would place a requirement on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consult various interested parties before issuing or revising the policing principles under clause 37, the codes of practice under clause 38, or the guidance under clause 39.
When that issue was raised in Committee—in the ninth and 10th sittings, at columns 330 to 340—I assured hon. Members that there is regular consultation on many issues with both the authority and the Chief Constable. My intention, nevertheless, was to consult further on those matters. I was therefore happy to undertake to include amendments to that effect on Report—which I am now doing.
I should like to mention particularly the requirement under clause 39 to consult the Police Association. The guidance issued under that clause is likely to deal with policing equipment and best practice in respect of police procedures and responses, which are matters in which operational police officers will have a direct interest. I believe that it is only right that the Government should take their views into account before issuing guidance under the provision.
I should like, finally, to deal with Government amendment No. 24—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] When we debated clause 47 in Committee—in the 1 1 th sitting, at columns 365 to 379—I said that I felt that it was right that the legislation should set a timetable for the Police Authority's annual report. The report is an

important document, as it contains an assessment of the Chief Constable's success in achieving the targets set for him under the annual policing plan.
I said at the time that four months seemed to be a reasonable time in which to issue the report, but I should be happy to listen to arguments in favour of other time scales, and to table amendments to alter the period to five or six months, if it is demonstrated to be sensible to do so.
I have considered the representations made in that debate, and in subsequent discussions. Consequently, I am convinced that a six-month period from the end of the financial year is a reasonable and appropriate time scale in which to issue the report. I shall amend the Bill accordingly.
Amendment No. 54 and the amendments grouped with it cover a comprehensive range of matters. Labour Members have demonstrated their recognition of the complexity of this group of amendments, and their willingness to move on in the matter. Although I had planned to summarise this debate, I have decided not to do so—as I know that hon. Members have listened intently to every word that I have said, and understood every word precisely.

Mr. Willis: I thank the Minister for his clarification of the issues, and for introducing amendments to address the issues that we raised in amendments Nos. 54 and 57.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 2, line 2, leave out
', and performance targets established,'.

No. 3, in page 2, line 6, at end insert—
'( ) the statement of principles issued under section 37;'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 3

STAFF OF THE POLICE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 40, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 5

PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT

Mr. Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in page 3, line 27, at end insert—
'(2A) The Chief Constable shall consult the Police Authority before purchasing any novel or contentious equipment.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 59, in page 3, line 45, at end insert
'and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17.'.
Government amendment No. 5.

Mr. Willis: Amendment No. 55 does not seek to limit the Chief Constable's power to control the police budget or his powers to allocate resources as he thinks fit and in


accordance with the policing plan. It sends the right message to those who may attempt to use the purchase of extra equipment to undermine the work of the police.
Amendment No. 55 makes provision for the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority before purchasing "novel or contentious equipment", such as anti-riot equipment, paramilitary-style police clothing and new weaponry. If the Government cannot accept the wording of the amendment, we hope that they will secure the principle behind it, by making sure that any extraneous equipment purchased by the Chief Constable is reported to the Police Authority.

Mr. Moss: Amendment No. 59, in my name and those of my hon. Friends, relates to clause 5 and inserts the words:
and to consultation with the Police Authority if purchases are in addition to those agreed under the annual policing plan under section 17.
A similar amendment to clause 9 was debated in Committee at some length. Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 relate to the financing of the Northern Ireland police service. The original amendment covered "novel and contentious" equipment, and its wording is reflected in amendment No. 55, moved by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis).
In Committee, however, the Minister rejected the amendment on grounds of definition, although he was predisposed to the sentiments behind it. He said:
I have no quarrel with the intention behind the amendment, which makes sense in principle …The Government have made it clear that we intend to require the Chief Constable to consult the authority should he wish to purchase novel or contentious equipment or services. However, 'novel' and 'contentious' are terms without meaning in legislation, and it would be inappropriate to put such a requirement on the face of the Bill."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 3 March 1998; c. 197.]
The Minister was predisposed to the intention behind the amendment, but felt that the words "novel" and "contentious" would create difficulties.
Amendment No. 59 drops the words "novel and contentious". It relates to equipment that the Chief Constable may wish to purchase in addition to that agreed with the Police Authority under the annual policing plan as set out in clause 17.
Clause 17(2) states:
The annual policing plan shall include a statement of the Police Authority's priorities for the year, of the financial resources expected to be available to the Authority and"—
the key words in respect of the amendment
of the proposed allocation of those resources by the Authority".
As the Chief Constable submits the draft policing plan to the Police Authority, it is likely that he will set out, under the heading of allocation of resources, the funds that he requires to purchase equipment for the ensuing year. That will eventually be agreed by the Police Authority and incorporated in the annual policing plan.
Clause 5 covers equipment in its broadest sense, including buildings, so it seemed appropriate to table an amendment to that clause rather than to clause 9.
Although at the beginning of a financial year there would be an agreement between the Police Authority and the Chief Constable under the annual policing plan on the allocation of resources to purchase certain equipment, instances might well arise during the year when the Chief Constable wished to make additional purchases. That could result from changed circumstances in regard to terrorism, law and order or any other sector over which the Chief Constable had responsibility and on which he would wish to take operational decisions quickly, in order to face whatever threat might be posed. We are not saying that there should be an indent for the equipment, but if the Chief Constable intended to purchase equipment additional to that which had been agreed, it would be sensible and certainly extremely helpful for the Police Authority to be consulted before such equipment was purchased.
Clause 17 gives the Police Authority tremendous powers. It ensures that what it has agreed vis-a-vis the annual policing plan is transparent, so that the public can see what expenditure has been allocated to various resources. Some of the equipment listed by the Chief Constable in the annual policing plan may well be contentious. If the Chief Constable wished to purchase contentious equipment, however, no doubt the Secretary of State would take a view on that, so no one is arguing that the Chief Constable has complete freedom to buy whatever he or she wants at the time. However, it is right and proper to state in the Bill that the Police Authority—whose policing plan it is, after all—should be consulted on any deviation from the agreed policing plan.
In Committee, the Minister gave assurances that he would somehow work the idea into the financial arrangements. No doubt he will allude to that again in his response, but as yet we have not seen the wording of those financial arrangements, so the House is still in the dark. The amendment sets it out extremely clearly. There is no argument about that; and the previous group of Government amendments was very much based on those that we tabled in Committee, reflecting the views of the Police Authority.
To give them their due, the Government have moved a considerable way towards meeting the requirements of the Opposition in Committee and taking into account their discussions with the Police Authority. However, until there is clarification as to how the problem will be addressed, the Government should consider accepting our amendment, which would set it out clearly in the Bill that any equipment, including that which could be contentious, will be included in the consultation by the Chief Constable with the Police Authority.

Mr. Hunter: I support amendment No. 59 and agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said in support of it. I shall add one more argument in favour of the amendment.
The amendment addresses particular circumstances when the Chief Constable wishes to purchase equipment in addition to what has been agreed under the annual plan. However, it must be borne in mind that the Chief Constable does no purchasing whatsoever under his own authority; he does it on behalf of and in the name of the Police Authority. Therefore, he is exercising the purchasing authority of the Police Authority. It is logical that, if he goes beyond the proposals agreed with the Police Authority, he should consult the Police


Authority: he does not have the authority to make the purchase; he is using the authority of the Police Authority and therefore, logically and reasonably, should consult it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: (Mr. Tony Worthington): Government amendment No. 5, which is straightforward, allows the police service in Northern Ireland to take advantage of private finance arrangements in undertaking major capital projects. Such power is already open to police services in Great Britain, so it is only right that it should be available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Amendment No. 55 would require the Chief Constable to consult the Police Authority before purchasing any novel or contentious equipment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) for faithfully recounting what I said in Committee. We stand by that. There is no difference between us in wanting discussion between the Chief Constable and the Police Authority if controversial equipment is bought, but the phrase "novel and contentious", presents a difficulty and does not seem appropriate for the Bill.
As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, I intend to include the requirement in the financial instructions, which will set out details of financial management arrangements under the legislation. We give the undertaking that it is perfectly proper for the Chief Constable and the Police Authority to be in discussion whenever the purchase of any controversial equipment is considered. We consider that a better way forward than including a phrase such as "novel and contentious" in the Bill.

Mr. Moss: rose—

Mr. Worthington: Perhaps, before intervening, the hon. Gentleman would like to hear what I have to say about the amendment that he tabled.
I shall ask the House to reject amendment No. 59. The reason is that it refers to the policing plan. If the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire looks at the policing plan, he will see that to insert in the Bill what equipment can be bought would completely change the nature of the plan. It is not that kind of document; it is about performance indicators, objectives, and so on. There is no reference to equipment purchase. As I said on amendment No. 55, which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled, the matter will be picked up in the financial instructions; we cannot write it into the Bill.
There has been a tendency for police authorities, like local authorities, to become obsessed with what kind of equipment should be bought, thus neglecting their central duty, which is about strategic planning and objective setting, and ensuring that the police keep to their targets and meet them.
The same assurance is valuable to both the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. We give the undertaking that the issues with which they are concerned will be picked up in the financial instructions, to make it quite clear that the Chief

Constable should not go ahead with the purchase of equipment that might have, for example, human rights implications, without it being clear that the Police Authority is involved.

Mr. Moss: When will the financial instructions will be written? Could they be made available before the Bill goes to the other place?

Mr. Worthington: I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman on that matter. I cannot say whether that will be possible. We want to be completely open on this matter to show that the legitimate points made have been taken into account. As I do not know precisely when the Bill will go to the other place, I cannot give the undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks. His point is taken, and I think that we shall be able to satisfy him on it.

Mr. Willis: I thank the Minister for that clarification and, indeed, for the fact that the financial instructions will contain an answer to the legitimate concern that we raised. Indeed, we would like the relationship between police authorities and chief constables in Great Britain to be resolved as well, because current legislation is a mess.

Mr. Mallon: There are two sides to the argument on all these issues, and I should like to raise one relating to the acquisition of property to which the Minister did not refer, through no fault of his own—disposal of police property.
We have inherited, in most places in the north of Ireland, quite massive police stations. They were built in such a way that they are an environmental affront and substantial amounts of land were requisitioned. It always hurts, especially in a rural community, when land is requisitioned in such a way. We are approaching the stage where I believe that it will be incumbent on the Police Authority to shed property, rather than acquire it. It will be very important that that is done constructively and sensitively.
There are already problems. I can quote examples of when I have pleaded with, begged, asked the Police Authority to take certain properties in my constituency because of the danger to people living next to police stations. On financial grounds, the police could not justify doing that. I understand that, in some of those cases, the Police Authority now wishes to requisition the land. That would be grossly unfair to the people who own it and to the people who lived through the trauma of being in danger for so many years. I ask that that be considered very carefully. I specify the case of Newtonhamilton. I should make the Minister aware of the concern there about further requisitioning of land in the centre of the town, which is not required because there is a massive police station.
I seek guidance from the Minister on police stations that were built during the past 25 years, which have a minimum height of about 20 m. Building them to that height was not the decision of the Police Authority—it had no say in the design of the buildings. It was a matter for the Chief Constable. Does it make any sense in a peaceful situation for the police station in the


middle of a village or in the middle of a city, such as on the Lisburn road in Belfast, to be encased within a 20 m wall?
I was continually assured that the design was such that undue height could be removed in circumstances where peace pertained. That is one respect in which we could start to show that we have moved into a different era; it would evoke a response from the community, would make policing more amenable to the community and would be good for policing as well as for the environment in which policing occurs. It is not good for either the community or policing to have to—almost—scale the heights, climb over a mountain, to get into the building.
When I go to the police station in my village, I first have to ring a bell. Then I hear a rattling inside, then someone peeps out, and eventually someone opens the gate. I can understand why—that police station has been bombed several times. I still maintain, however, that we must have confidence in what has been done; we must begin a new era. One way of living up to what has been achieved is to start taking down these walls. I was assured that that could be done, when the time was right, without destroying the fabric of the police station. When the police dispose of whatever land is not required, they must do so quickly, and there must be no suggestion of any commercial profit accruing from the requisitioning of land by the Police Authority or anyone else.
I hope that the Minister will keep these points at the forefront of his mind, because, unless we all show our intent in relation to the new beginning, we will be left with the remnants of the past. Let us begin now; the Government amendment would allow us to do that quickly and effectively.

Mr. Worthington: It is impossible to disagree with the sentiment behind the remarks of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It is always a great shock for people visiting Northern Ireland to see the fortresses that police stations have become. The great prize which may emerge from this agreement is a possible return to some kind of normality—but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that there have been three attempted mortar attacks in the past few weeks, all of which we surmise to have been directed at police stations. In such a climate, it is difficult to declare that this is the moment to withdraw protection from police stations. The hon. Gentleman wants to move in the same direction as we do. I assure him that we shall do so as soon as it is safe.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: When the moment arrives for the disposal of these buildings, I hope that the interests and aspirations of local communities will be genuinely taken into account.

Mr. Worthington: Of course I can give that assurance—it is part of the prize that we all seek.

Mr. Willis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 45, at end insert—

'() The power conferred by this section to provide buildings or equipment includes power to enter into a contract with another person for the provision or making available of buildings or equipment together with any services relating to such buildings or equipment'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 10

FUNDING OF POLICE AUTHORITY—ANCILLARY PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 6, line 29, leave out from 'to' to end of line 31 and insert 'the Police Authority'.

No. 7, in page 6, line 34, leave out '(2)(a)' and insert '(2)' —[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 14

SETTING OF POLICING OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 7, line 31, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 34.

No. 9, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'and performance targets established'.

No. 10, in page 8, line 2, leave out

'or performance targets established or revised'.

No. 11, in page 8, line 4, leave out from 'determined' to end of line 7 and insert

'under this section shall, where objectives so determined have been revised, be read as references to such objectives as revised'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 15

SETTING OF POLICING OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE TARGETS BY POLICE AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 8, line 11, leave out from 'year' to end of line 13.

No. 13, in page 8, line 22, at end insert—

'(4) The Police Authority shall establish levels of performance ("performance targets") to be aimed at in seeking to achieve—

(a) any objectives established by the Secretary of State under section 14; and
(b) the objectives determined by the Authority for a financial year under this section.

(5) Performance targets under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) shall be established before the beginning of the period specified in the objectives in question by virtue of section 14(3); and


performance targets under paragraph (b) of that subsection shall be established before the beginning of the financial year in question.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 16

THE CHIEF CONSTABLE'S STRATEGIC POLICING PLAN

Amendment made: No. 14, in page 8, leave out lines 33 and 34.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 17

THE POLICE AUTHORITY'S ANNUAL POLICING PLAN

Amendments made: No. 15, in page 9, leave out lines 11 and 12.

No. 16, in page 9, line 24, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 26 and insert

'consult the Secretary of State'.— [Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 19

GENERAL FUNCTIONS OF CHIEF CONSTABLE

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 10, line 14, leave out from 'to' to end of line 15 and insert—

(a) the annual policing plan issued under section 17; and
(b) the statement of principles issued under section 37.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 29

LIABILITY FOR WRONGFUL ACTS OF CONSTABLES

Mr. Worthington: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 16, line 2, at end insert—

'() There shall be paid out of funds put at the disposal of the Chief Constable under section 10(5)—

(a) any damages or costs awarded against the Chief Constable in any proceedings brought against him by virtue of this section and any costs incurred by him in any such proceedings so far as not recovered by him in those proceedings; and
(b) any sum required in connection with the settlement of any claim made against the Chief Constable by virtue of this section, if the settlement is approved by the Police Authority.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 16, line 4, after 'appropriate', insert
', and subject to the approval of the Police Authority'.'
Government amendments Nos. 19 and 35 to 38.

Mr. Worthington: In the hope of curtailing our debate, I shall begin by responding to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—although he has not spoken yet in this debate—so that he can see just how reasonable we are.
Amendment No. 56 would require the Chief Constable to obtain the approval of the Police Authority before paying damages for the wrongful actions of his officers. This is a considerable extension of the authority's existing powers in this area, and I suspect that it does not do what the hon. Gentleman sought anyway.
The authority's existing power under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1970 is to assess whether the Chief Constable has taken appropriate legal advice in making the decision to settle a case out of court, and ensuring that he pays sufficient regard to the need for economy in the use of public resources in agreeing the amount of any settlement.
As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said in Committee, this power should continue. However, he did not think primary legislation was the appropriate place for it. We considered the issue at length and there have since been consultations on it with the Police Authority.
The concerns expressed, both by hon. Members and by the Police Authority, have been taken on board; they will be described in detail when we move to the Government amendments to clause 29. Amendment No. 56 would not only require the Police Authority to assess whether the Chief Constable had taken appropriate legal advice, but require the authority to form a view on whether an officer had committed a wrong in the course of his duty, and therefore whether the Chief Constable should be liable for the payment of damages. That could give rise to a court finding, as a matter of fact and law, that a police officer had committed a wrong against a member of the public. If the officer were acting in the course of duty, the Chief Constable would be liable for damages in such a situation.
Under the amendment, it would be open to the Police Authority to refuse to approve the payment, which would leave the officer himself liable to pay damages which, in many cases, he would be unlikely to be able to do. That gives the authority the power to make decisions in an area that is properly the responsibility of a court; I do not believe that that is what the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough intended, and I know that it is not a power that the Police Authority is seeking. I would therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.
As for Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19, as I have said, we discussed clause 29 at considerable length in Committee. I said at that time that I was prepared to listen to reasoned arguments and consider possible amendments on Report, provided I could see the strength of the argument, and could assure myself that the Chief Constable's position was properly protected. An understanding has been arrived at with the Police Authority that this matter will be governed by a set of principles that safeguard the interests of all concerned.
The legal position and the powers that the amendment gives the Police Authority are precisely as they were described, when we set out the position under the 1970 Act, in the ninth sitting of Standing Committee B on 5 March. That being so, I am more than happy to amend the Bill so that it maintains the present position regarding civil claims.
The Government amendments to schedule 4 are incidental to the new financial arrangements provided by clause 10(5). They ensure that moneys required to be paid as a result of actions against the Chief Constable under the race relations legislation, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 are paid out of the grant made available to the Chief Constable for police purposes under clause 10(5).
I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough will not press his amendment, in the light of the changes that we are making to clause 29. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Mr. Willis: It is a strange experience to have one's arguments about an amendment answered before they are made and to have one's amendment withdrawn, as it were, before one has said that one wants to withdraw it. Nevertheless, I understand the Minister's point—and, indeed, we do not want to press an amendment that would cause difficulties.
The relationship between damages awarded against a constable or even the Chief Constable—in effect, against the police force—the payment of those damages, and the Police Authority raises an important principle. There is grave concern in the United Kingdom as a whole at the way in which chief constables sometimes deal with those claims in isolation from police authorities, as police authorities take the flak when something goes wrong. We tabled the amendment to seek clarification, so I am grateful to the Minister for his response.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 16, line 10, at end insert

', if the settlement is approved by the Police Authority'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 37

STATEMENT OF POLICING PRINCIPLES

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 20, line 13, at end insert—

'() A statement issued under this section shall include the principle that the policing of Northern Ireland is to be conducted in an impartial manner.'.

No. 21, in page 20, line 13, at end insert—

'() Before issuing a statement under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Police Authority; and
(b) the Chief Constable.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 38

CODES OF PRACTICE

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 20, line 18, at end insert—

'() Before issuing or revising a code of practice under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the Police Authority.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 39

GUIDANCE AS TO EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY POLICE FORCE

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 20, line 24, at end insert—

'() Before issuing or revising any guidance under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) the Police Authority;
(b) the Chief Constable; and
(c) the Police Association.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 47

ANNUAL AND OTHER REPORTS BY POLICE AUTHORITY TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 22, line 37, leave out '4' and insert '6' —[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 51

THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

7 pm

Mr. Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 25, line 20, leave out 'a' and insert 'an Independent'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in page 25, line 22, after 'of insert 'Independent'.
No. 43, in page 25, line 23, at end insert—
'(2A) The Independent Police Ombudsman shall ensure that he gives due consideration to the fact that he operates, and is seen to operate, independently of the Government and the Northern Ireland Police Service.'.
No. 44, in page 25, line 24, after 'the', insert 'Independent'.
Government amendments Nos. 25 and 32.
No. 47, in schedule 3, page 41, line 37, leave out from 'be' to 'and' and insert
'until the appointee reaches retirement age'.
No. 48, in page 41, leave out lines 39 and 40.
No. 49, in page 41, leave out lines 41 and 42.
No. 50, in page 42, line 2, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 3.
No. 51, in page 42, line 23, leave out from 'may' to 'employ' in line 24.
No. 52, in page 42, line 25, at end insert 'efficiently and effectively'.
No. 53, in page 42, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 49 on page 43.
Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.

Mr. Willis: Amendments Nos. 41 to 44 all refer to the independence of the police ombudsman and his or her office. In Committee, the role and independence of the ombudsman was considered in depth. Liberal Democrats have misgivings about the new ombudsman's role and functions, particularly the ombudsman's relationship with the Police Authority and the Northern Ireland Office, which we believe will have to be developed if it is to be acceptable.
We accept the conclusion of Dr. Maurice Hayes that there is a lack of confidence in the current complaints system because it is not sufficiently independent, so we broadly support the Government's aims. The Government have accepted that the principle of independence should be specified in the Bill-we hope that the Minister's explanation of Government amendment No. 25 will suffice.
Amendments Nos. 47 to 53 are inevitably linked to the issue of the ombudsman's independence. We agree with what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh


(Mr. Mallon) said in Committee—we do not believe that the independence of the ombudsman service should depend on the person who is appointed. Nevertheless, as I am sure the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh would agree, we agree that the right appointment will be extremely important to the success of the new service.
We are pleased that the original term of office, which was to be renewable, has been changed to a seven-year fixed term, although we do not understand why a fixed term is necessary. Government amendment No. 32 was tabled to clarify the position on tenure, so I hope that the Minister will explain why the period of tenure should be specified. Surely it is far better that the right person is appointed and continues in post until he or she no longer feels it necessary—we do not want what happened in respect of the European central bank to be repeated.
Amendment No. 53 was tabled to question the necessity for schedule 3(5). How can the ombudsman be independent if police officers are recruited and then seconded into his office? The ombudsman will have to investigate the police, so to have police officers as part and parcel of his office, for whatever reason, would undermine the office's independence. That is an important issue, on which we ask the Minister to give a considered response.

Mr. Ingram: I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 41 to 44, tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), which would add the word "independent" to the title of the ombudsman. I shall then cover Government amendment No. 25, which adds a preamble to part VII of the Bill. After that, I shall speak on amendments Nos. 47 to 50 and Government amendment No. 32, which are related—they deal with the tenure of the ombudsman. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 also deal with the appointment. Finally, I shall deal with amendment No. 53 and Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which cover police service.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 44 would apply the description "independent" to the police ombudsman's post. I do not believe that they would enhance the legislation. Amendment No. 43 places further emphasis on the independence of the ombudsman. By its very nature, the office of ombudsman is independent. The word "independent" is not used in statute to describe any other ombudsmen, so to use it in the Bill could cast doubt on the independence of other ombudsmen—if it is regarded as necessary to define ombudsmen as independent in Northern Ireland, that could give rise to questions about the independence of other ombudsmen. Moreover, there would be a glaring difference in statute.
The powers granted to the ombudsman in the Bill guarantee his or her independence, so it is not necessary to specify the word "independent" in legislation. The parliamentary ombudsman, for example, is not described as independent, but I am sure that hon. Members would agree that his actions demonstrate his independence. Similarly, the police ombudsman will be judged not by the description in the Bill, but by the way in which he or she performs the tasks required by the legislation. I recommend that the House rejects amendments Nos. 41 to 44, as they are unnecessary. Amendment No. 44 also suggests that the ombudsman should operate independently, so I hope that the House will reject it, especially in the light of Government amendment No. 25.
Government amendment No. 25 will add a provision to the Bill emphasising that the ombudsman must exercise his or her powers in such a manner and to such an extent as appears to him or her to best secure the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system and the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system. It will, in effect, add a preamble to part VII of the Bill.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) tabled an amendment along similar lines to Government amendment No. 25. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. öpik) tabled an amendment not dissimilar to amendment No. 43. In the event, it was not moved, as the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, although some members of the Committee supported the idea behind it—members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh, accepted that the wording could be improved. I accepted the principle and gave an undertaking to table a Government amendment on Report. In the light of that undertaking, the amendment was withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 25 takes into account the essential principles in the Hayes report of the fundamental need for independence and the overriding requisite that the complaints system should command the confidence of both the public and the police. On that basis, I commend that amendment to the House.
I also commend Government amendment No. 32 in preference to amendments Nos. 47 to 50. The Government tabled amendment No. 32 in the light of the comments made by hon. Members on Second Reading and in Committee. Concern was expressed that an ombudsman whose term was subject to renewal might be vulnerable to political pressure, because he or she would want to curry favour with the Government to ensure a second term.
Amendments Nos. 47 to 50 suggest that the ombudsman should be appointed on a tenure until retirement. That was also suggested by Dr. Hayes. I do not consider that appropriate in the light of the Nolan recommendations, and recent legislation has tended to limit the tenure of appointments, but to reassure hon. Members that the appointee will not be vulnerable to political pressure, I propose a provision whereby the ombudsman will be appointed for a non-renewable seven-year term, or until 70, whichever is the shorter.
The total of seven years is within Sir Leonard Peach's recommendation on total period of service of six to eight years. Both Dr. Maurice Hayes and Sir Leonard Peach have been consulted on the proposal and agree with our approach.
A related amendment, No. 50, would remove the provision allowing the Secretary of State to call on the ombudsman to retire in the interests of efficiency and effectiveness. Again, that issue was dealt with in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh tabled an amendment covering the point; after consideration, it was withdrawn.
The success of the ombudsman's office will depend to a large extent on the success of the person who holds the post. It would be wrong to hamper the effectiveness of the ombudsman's office through the inability to remove an ombudsman who is not fulfilling the role required of him or her by the legislation.


We all agree that the ombudsman must be, and must be seen to be, independent. That requires that the ombudsman is given a secure appointment, but it does not mean that he or she should be able to continue in post if not performing effectively or efficiently. That is why we have included the provision at paragraph 1(7)(a), stating that the Secretary of State may call upon the ombudsman to retire
in the interests of efficiency or effectiveness".
The provision is the same as that for the RUC Chief Constable and for chief constables in England and Wales, who are appointed on fixed-term contracts. It is also the same as for the director general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. The provision is relevant to a single postholder of the importance of the police ombudsman. If he or she is inefficient or ineffective, the Secretary of State should surely act to ensure that the credibility of the office is not lost.
The provision for the ombudsman, as with those other provisions, gives ample scope for an appeal against any call to retire. The power allows for the removal of an individual who is manifestly failing, even if his or her conduct does not include actual criminality. That is in the public interest and protects the office of police ombudsman. I hope that hon. Members will accept Government amendment No. 32, and I hope that amendments Nos. 47 to 50 will not be pressed to a vote.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 would remove the requirement for the ombudsman to gain the approval of the Secretary of State as to numbers and remuneration, and other terms and conditions of service of employees. Instead, the amended provision would state that the ombudsman should employ such persons as he or she thinks fit to enable the ombudsman's functions to be carried out "efficiently and effectively". I cannot accept the amendments.
The provision that the Secretary of State must approve the staffing numbers, remuneration and terms and conditions of employees is an important one that is standard in legislation establishing independent statutory bodies and is consistent with Treasury guidance on non-departmental public bodies. The justification for the provision is that it will be for the Government to fund the direct running costs of the ombudsman's office, so we have a responsibility to ensure that funds are not used wastefully.
The Government, in consultation with the ombudsman, will ensure that the office is adequately staffed to perform the functions provided for in the legislation. The provision, as drafted, ensures that the Government remain accountable to Parliament for the expenditure voted by Parliament.
7.15 pm
I would also argue that the words "efficiently and effectively" are not required. They do not add to the sense of the provision, which deals with employment of staff, not how the ombudsman's functions should be carried out. I hope that amendments Nos. 51 and 52 will not be pressed to a vote.
Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34 and amendment No. 53 deal with RUC service with the ombudsman. Amendment No. 53 would remove the detailed provisions on RUC officers serving on the ombudsman's staff and those providing assistance to meet special demands: for example, those who are called in to make door-to-door inquiries. Those are arrangements that Dr. Hayes recommended, and I will hold consultations with the Independent Commission for Police Complaints on the issue. Amendment No. 53 would clearly create an inconsistency. I hope that it will not be pressed to a vote.
The schedule, as drafted, provides that
The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements for members of the police force to be engaged for a period of temporary service with the Ombudsman.
That provision was interpreted by some, including members of the Standing Committee—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh—as requiring the ombudsman to engage police officers for all time.
That was not our intention in drafting the provision, which is designed to require arrangements to be made in case members of the police are engaged by the ombudsman. Those arrangements would deal with the way in which officers were to be paid, to get leave, and so on. Although I regarded the provision as clear, as did the legislative draftsman, in the light of the concerns expressed, I concluded that there should be a change to make it clearer. That again shows that we benefited from the input from hon. Members in Committee. I hope that hon. Members will agree to Government amendments Nos. 25, 32, 33 and 34, and that the others will not be pressed to a vote.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is one part of the Bill that is welcomed by all sections of the community in Northern Ireland. That point was well made on Second Reading. For many years, those who represented people in Northern Ireland were anxious that there should be an independent body to deal with complaints against the police. In the appointment of the ombudsman, that is set in place. There are some difficulties re appointment, and those and other matters have been explained by the Minister. I welcome the fact that the ombudsman will be appointed, and that at long last people will know that he is independent of the police.
No matter how acceptably police officers carry out their duty, we cannot ask them to be judge and jury in cases involving their own. Their doing so has always left a doubt in people's minds, and made many reluctant to go along that route. The proposal will benefit all parts of the community, and it will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Mallon: I warmly welcome the Government amendments. I notice that the Minister is looking at me in what is almost a state of shock. I understand why he may feel that, but I genuinely welcome them.
It is crucial that changes be made. The essence of an independent ombudsman is that he should make his decisions. Government amendment No. 33 changes the Bill from stating:
The Ombudsman and the Chief Constable shall enter into arrangements".


That original wording reduced the ombudsman's independent ability to make what arrangements he chose. It is essential to the independence of his office that there is no legislative imperative to enter into arrangements, and no legislative imperative not to enter into arrangements. Under Government amendment No. 33, the ombudsman can decide independently of the Bill, of the Secretary of State and of the police what arrangements he or she will make for use of the police, whether it is the Northern Ireland service—as in this case—or one from abroad. I am especially pleased by that crucial change.
Recent experience suggests that those who hold independent offices in Northern Ireland come under severe pressure at times. One might not believe all the rumours, but those who hold such offices must be strong people. They have to trample on toes and take on vested interests in the Government, the police, the Police Federation and the community. They must have full legislative independence to allow them to do that. I repeat that I warmly welcome the Government amendments, which change the whole complexion of this part of the Bill. Everyone will be pleased by them.
I also welcome what the Minister said about the ombudsman's relationship with the community and the police service. It will not be healthy if there are tensions between the community and the ombudsman, or between the police and the ombudsman. We need a remarkable person for the job, and I believe that the Government's changes are worth while.
When we deal with legislation, we rightly consider all eventualities. Let me pose one that does not come readily to mind in Northern Irish terms, whereby tensions in the community start to dissipate, attitudes towards policing change and relationships in the communities respond to those changes. In those circumstances, it would be right to have the powers of an independent ombudsman. Other hon. Members and I look forward to the day when that person is appointed, and, in the longer term, to the time when he or she becomes just a memory. Change will not come unless we have absolute independence for the right person in the job. Our legislation must not tie the ombudsman down in any way, and must allow for independent decisions. That will affect the way in which police complaints will evolve, even over the next five years.

Mr. Willis: Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 go a long way to resolving many of the issues that we wanted to raise on Report. We are still concerned about paragraph 5 of schedule 3, but will return to it in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 25, line 25, at end insert—
'() The Ombudsman shall exercise his powers under this Part in such manner and to such extent as appears to him to be best calculated to secure—

(a) the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system; and
(b) the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 52

COMPLAINTS—RECEIPT AND INITIAL CLASSIFICATION OF COMPLAINTS

Mr. Willis: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 25, line 41, at end insert—

'(aa) make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant
is informed that his complaint is being considered,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in page 25, line 42, at end insert
'and—
(c) make reasonable effort to ensure that the complainant is kept informed of developments in the consideration of his complaint, including any resolution or action resulting therefrom'.
Government amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 58.

Mr. Willis: Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 are very plain. One of the great frustrations in taking a complaint to the ombudsman—even in England, whether it be the parliamentary ombudsman, one in local government or another—is keeping abreast of what is happening. The amendments are intended to put in the Bill, or otherwise establish, the principles that a complaint should be constantly monitored, and that the complainant should receive feedback. If the ombudsman takes any action, it should be reported to the complainant.

Mr. Worthington: I think that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that there is no difference between us, although I do not believe that what he wants should be written into the Bill. The amendments contain definitional problems, such as the meaning of development, but the hon. Gentleman's point that the complainant should be kept informed ought to be taken care of in the regulations and guidance that will accompany the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 58 all affect clause 64. I shall try to make the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) happy again by saying that the amendments follow the provisions of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 on informing complainants who request a record. We believe that a person should automatically receive a record of the outcome of his case. The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in Committee, I agreed to introduce an amendment on Report, and he withdrew his amendment. The amendment that we have tabled meets the point that was made in Committee, and I recommend it to the House.
Amendment No. 27 makes an enabling provision in clause 64 for regulations authorising or requiring the ombudsman to provide "the appropriate disciplinary authority" with information relevant to the exercise of any power of suspension.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh tabled an amendment that brought to our attention the fact that, with the ombudsman controlling the case, the Chief Constable would not automatically know what was happening and that the suspension of an officer during that case might not occur. Again, we agreed that an amendment along those lines made sense and undertook to introduce one on Report.
At present, during investigations by the RUC into complaints against the police, the evidence is constantly reviewed and the Chief Constable can order suspension if he sees fit. The amendment enables the ombudsman to provide the information to the Chief Constable or Police Authority so that they can consider whether suspension is appropriate. I commend the amendment to the House.
7.30 pm
Finally, I shall deal with amendment No. 58. We said that we wanted to consider powers for the ombudsman to make recommendations to the Chief Constable for the payment of ex gratia sums. Dr. Hayes expected that the sums would be modest.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh tabled a new clause to require the ombudsman to consider compensation and to direct a payment where "circumstances warrant it". That proposal went further than Dr Hayes's recommendations, but I said in Committee that we were sympathetic to the introduction of a wider compensation provision for substantiated cases, if there could be a simple procedure. Having considered the matter, we have concluded that the balance of argument is in favour of what the hon. Gentleman suggested. That is why we have tabled amendment No. 58. It provides a power—I want to be absolutely clear about this—allowing the Government to make regulations that would enable the ombudsman to make recommendations to the Chief Constable to pay a modest level of compensation.
The hon. Gentleman may well ask what is meant by a modest level of compensation. We have in our mind up to about £3,000—the level in the small claims court in England and Wales—to a complainant, where a complaint has been substantiated. Of course, that does not take away the right of a complainant to go to the civil court. If the complainant went to the civil court, we would expect the amount that had been paid to be taken into account.
I wish to make it clear to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that we are making the amendment because we can see the sense of tackling the issue of compensation now so that we do not have to introduce further primary legislation. We intend that the regulations will be implemented only after careful consideration. We shall consider the experience of the early days of the ombudsman's office and consult the ombudsman who is in position before we introduce any scheme, to ensure that he or she is content with it, and we shall also consult the police and the Police Authority on the detail.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister clarify the point that he made about an amount of £3,000? I take it that he means an amount up to and including £3,000, and that it is not a stipulated amount.

Mr. Worthington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving me the opportunity to clear away any doubt. I knew that, if I referred to a compensation amount, people would want to know how much, and I have tried to provide that information. What is in our mind is an amount of up to £3,000. It could not be a fixed tariff. We are simply taking powers. The provision was not in the Bill and we shall need to consult

the police, the Police Authority and any other bodies about how it was introduced. We need to have the experience of the ombudsman. I hope that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh realises that we have taken serious account of the points that he has raised. I hope that the amendments tabled by the Government will be accepted.

Mr. Mallon: I assure the Minister that I welcome the Government amendments. I am pleased with them. They have gone a long way to meet the aims of the three proposals that I made in Committee. I shall not detain the House further. I welcome the Government amendments. They are an advance on the situation.

Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to amendments Nos. 45 and 46. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64

REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 33, line 21, leave out from 'procedure' to end of line 22.

No. 27, in page 34, line 5, at end insert—
'() for authorising or requiring the Ombudsman to provide to the appropriate disciplinary authority information relevant to the exercise by that authority of any power of suspension under regulations made by virtue of section 25(2)(f) or 26(2)(e);'.

No. 58, in page 34, line 12, at end insert—
'() for enabling the Ombudsman, in such cases as may be prescribed, to make a recommendation to the Chief Constable for the payment by the Chief Constable to the complainant of compensation of such amount as the Ombudsman considers appropriate (but not exceeding such amount as may be prescribed);'—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 73

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 37, leave out line 12.

No. 29, in page 37, line 22, at end insert—
police service staff" has the meaning assigned by section 3(7);'.

No. 30, in page 37, line 39, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.

No. 31, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'civilian' and insert 'police service'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 3

THE POLICE OMBUDSMAN FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 41, leave out lines 36 to 42 and insert—

'(3) An appointment as Ombudsman may be full—time or part—time.

(4) An appointment as Ombudsman shall be for

(a) a period of 7 years; or
(b) a period ending on the date on which the person appointed attains the age of 70,

whichever is the shorter.

(5) A person whose term of appointment as Ombudsman expires shall not be eligible for re-appointment.'.

No. 33, in page 42, line 43, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

No. 34, in page 43, leave out lines 1 to 5.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Schedule 4

AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 35, in page 47, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—

"'(4A) In the application of this section to the police force—

(a) in subsection (2) for the words "as expenses of the police authority" there shall be substituted the words "out of funds put at the disposal of the Chief Constable under section 10(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998"; and
(b) subsection (4) shall be omitted.".'.

No. 36, in page 47, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—

'"(4A) In the application of paragraph (4) to the police force for the words "as expenses of the police authority" there shall be substituted the words "out of funds put at the disposal of the Chief Constable under section 10(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998".".'.

No. 37, in page 49, leave out lines 32 to 34 and insert—

"'(3A) In the application of this Article to the police force—

(a) in paragraph (2) for the words "as expenses of the police authority" there shall be substituted the words "out of funds put at the disposal of the Chief Constable under section 10(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998"; and
(b) paragraph (3) shall be omitted.".'.

No. 38, in page 49, line 36, at end insert

'The Police (Health and Safety)(Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (NI 16)

25. In Article 7(3) of the Police (Health and Safety)(Northem Ireland) Order 1997 in the definition of "the relevant fund" after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted—
(aa) in relation to the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, funds put at the disposal of the Chief Constable under section 10(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998; and".'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I shall not detain the House much longer, but it is important that we comment on the considerable debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. We have had another useful debate on all the issues involved in the Bill this evening.
The provisions of the Bill will establish a more efficient, effective, accountable and acceptable police service in Northern Ireland. It is worth reflecting briefly on the significant provisions in the Bill. It preserves the operational independence of the Chief Constable. He will remain free of partisan political control. It also preserves and more clearly focuses the role of the Police Authority.
It introduces new police objective setting and planning mechanisms. Those will enable greater accountability of the police to the community through the Police Authority.
The Bill clarifies the responsibilities and roles of the partners in the tripartite structure. It enables financial responsibility for the day-to-day management of policing to pass to the Chief Constable from the Police Authority so that the local senior officer can be held accountable for the service that he or she delivers. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a new independent system for investigating police complaints. That measure, above all others, has received unanimous support.
The provisions of the Bill are therefore the building blocks on which other sensible improvements can be made if found to be necessary in the future. There is no doubt that the Bill has benefited from its passage through the Commons. I am extremely grateful to hon. Members from all parties for their contribution. I also thank the Police Authority, the RUC and the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for their valuable contributions as the Bill has proceeded through the House. All have had a major input in shaping the Bill. It will leave the House in a form that will command the full support not only of the House of Commons but of people across Northern Ireland.
As the House will be aware, while we were taking the Bill through its Commons stages, the on-going talks process resulted in the Good Friday agreement. That agreement, if endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland on 22 May, will result in the setting up of an independent commission on policing. Many of the key features of the Bill are identified in principles set out in the agreement and in the terms of reference for the independent commission, which will consider those essential ingredients of sound, effective and widely supported policing arrangements for Northern Ireland.
The independent commission will be truly independent and will look at the areas identified in its terms of reference; therefore, it can look at this legislation. However, I am sure that, when it does so, it will take due note of our deliberations and the support in the House and across Northern Ireland for the Bill's provisions.
The Bill will bring real benefits to all the people of Northern Ireland, because good, effective policing is at the very heart of any law-abiding society. It is a worthwhile and necessary measure, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Moss: I concur with most of what the Minister has just said. I went through the amendment paper and counted 38 Government amendments on Report, which is adequate testimony to the proper and detailed scrutiny that the Bill has received, both in Committee and on Report. The Bill was in gestation during the time of the previous Government, but considerable additions and changes have been made by the Labour Government and there are differences from the legislation that pertains in England and Wales. I give credit to the Minister and his team for the constructive way in which they have addressed the concerns expressed by Opposition members of the Committee. Despite political change, it was important to go ahead with the legislation.
Northern Ireland is disadvantaged by not having a Police Authority with appropriate powers to look after the public interest—powers that have been enjoyed for some


time by police authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Bill not only defines an expanded role for the Police Authority for Northern Ireland, but gives it considerably enhanced powers and responsibilities. First and foremost, it is accountable to the general public and most of the amendments tabled in Committee were designed to clarify that role and strengthen the powers of the Police Authority to fulfil it.
The new and evolving political situation provides a changing backdrop for the Bill; it also raises questions about the future of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The Opposition have been reassured by the Prime Minister's comments on a secure future for the RUC, but we would be most unhappy to see any developments that undermined the RUC's morale and efficiency.
We view the forthcoming commission as an opportunity, not a trial—an opportunity to put on the record in a conclusive and definitive way the significant contribution made by the RUC to law and order, to the normalisation of life in Northern Ireland and to general stability in society. Great sacrifices have been made by numerous brave officers in the face of threats and intimidation over many years and we commend that record of unstinting service, both to the Crown and to the communities of Northern Ireland. We are confident that the commission will reach similar conclusions as there is nothing to hide.
The Bill puts policing in Northern Ireland on a completely new level. The changes are to be welcomed, dealing as they do not only with the powers of the enhanced Police Authority, but with the new position of the police ombudsman. That breaks entirely new ground and is ahead of the legislation that applies to the rest of the United Kingdom. There are several areas in which the Opposition would still like to see some change and those will, no doubt, be the subject of debate in the other place. For the time being, the Bill is much better for the amendments that have been made.

Mr. Maginnis: I suppose that there are times in one's life when one feels that the efforts that one has made here are ignored and unrewarded. I have endured that feeling on many occasions in the past and will probably do so on many occasions in the future. However, in this instance, I feel that the long hours that we have spent taking the Bill through its various stages have been worth while.
As someone who has been closely associated with the Royal Ulster Constabulary for many years, I have been deeply concerned at how external interests have had dominance over the interests of a police service that, not only for the past 28 years but for the past 42 years—with the exception of about nine uneasy years tucked in at various points—has had to place itself time and again as a bulwark between the law-abiding community and the terrorist. I sometimes get the feeling that that role is forgotten.
I had that feeling a couple of years ago when the Chief Constable was conducting his fundamental review and looking at the possibility of a peaceful society in Northern Ireland and at the ultimate necessity of downsizing the RUC. At that time, I searched for what the RUC, with its more than 300 dead policemen and its more than

7,000 injured policemen, had been given that was out of the ordinary and took account of the special circumstances in which it has to police. I looked at the £240 million that came from the peace and reconciliation fund and discovered that the RUC had not been given a single solitary brass farthing.
I raise that matter because, with the help of others who are friends of the RUC and who are concerned about the welfare of the RUC, and with the RUC federation, there was established at that time the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust. Originally, it was hoped that the trust would provide on-going medical assessment for policemen who were suffering the physical and mental effects of so many years combating terrorism; and that, looking forward to a more peaceful society and the need to downsize, we would not have several hundred, 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 policemen suddenly discarded without any consideration for their welfare. The trust has continued to work over the past couple of years with those aims in mind.
It is with a degree of enjoyment—there is no better word—that I acknowledge the work that the Minister of State has done since we first broached the subject with him five months ago. That work has led to the Prime Minister announcing yesterday a £4.5 million package to be used to provide physical and mental assessments so that members of the police in Northern Ireland will have access, at the right time, to the best medical care; and so that a policeman no longer feels he has to hide chronic illnesses, but knows that they can be dealt with efficiently and effectively. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will also approve the concept of retraining our police for the future, before the event. I am grateful that the Government have reacted so positively on that issue.
As we move hopefully towards, not just an agreement signed or assented to on 10 April or the referendum result that will come on 22 May, but greater accommodation and understanding between the two traditions in Northern Ireland, I should like to think that the role of the police will change to a considerable degree, so that both traditions will accord the sort of respect to our constabulary that they expect our constabulary to accord them. That process could begin if we do not create circumstances in which the police have to continue to occupy a position between the two traditions. It could begin if the nonsense and obscenity of Harryville comes to an end. It could begin if the nonsense and obscenity of those who oppose the church parade at Drumcree comes to an end.
If we are to have ultimate agreement in our society in Northern Ireland, there has to be respect between the two traditions. We cannot say that we believe in equity and equality of treatment if at the same time we are saying, "I cannot stand the sight of that person from the other tradition to the extent that he cannot walk to his church once a year or every Saturday evening."
The RUC has for many years been an anti-terrorist police force, but it has also fulfilled with great efficiency its role as a civil power. Its level of detection, ability to obtain convictions and crime prevention work, whether on burglary or drugs, are of considerable note. It is a successful constabulary, but it is to be examined once again. Examination is not a bad thing, except when it is repeated many times. The RUC seems always to be under the microscope.
The appointment of a commission will be crucial to the RUC's confidence and morale. The commission's task, first and foremost, must be to ensure the welfare of the RUC, now and in the future. I hope that, in the light of new arrangements, there will be a recognition that the RUC has a right to its history, just as we all believe that we have such a right. I hope also that the clamour for a change in name and for other unnecessary and mischievous changes will abate, and that, in the light of the Bill and what is to come, we shall consider carefully how our civil power can operate normally in a civil society.
The police recognise that downsizing is an inevitable consequence of peace, but I have never heard a policeman say, "I should like the violence and confrontation to increase because my job is at stake." I work closely with the police. They are always looking for the moment when they are rewarded for their years of working to protect society in Northern Ireland.
In the wake of the decision that we are making today, and of other decisions that have been made in the past couple of months, and in looking forward to constructive decisions that I hope will be made in the coming months, we should all adopt a compassionate attitude—I do not think that that is an exaggeration—to those who have faced so much on our behalf and who now have to go through yet another period of uncertainty, with retraining and perhaps even having to find a new job in the next four or five years. Our Royal Ulster Constabulary deserves that compassion. I am grateful to the Minister and those in his Department who have helped to make the Bill more acceptable to the interests of the RUC and of the Police Authority, which has an important role in ensuring that society has a channel to the law keepers and law enforcers.

Mr. Mallon: Like other hon. Members, I am pleased and relieved that we have reached the final stages of the Bill. It has been a long, tedious and difficult Bill because of its innovations. In Committee and in the House we have debated policing without ever deviating to discuss the police. That tells us something about the process that we have been through.
The Bill is not a watershed, but it is certainly a signpost in the right direction. I am not being less than generous to it when I say that its principles will extend far beyond the time when the problem may start to be solved. That solution will come inexorably. When it does, the current and previous Governments can take great credit for having had the foresight to see that things were going to change and for trying to deal with that change constructively and positively.
We have dealt with a difficult aspect of Northern Irish life, as the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) showed. On one side of the community there is a deep emotional attachment to policing, but there is a chasm on the other side. We have to address that. We can deal with the technicalities in legislation, but the gap must be dealt with. The issue symbolises the division in our community. As the hon. Gentleman says, we must start to bind the wounds, because they are deep and are linked to powerful emotions throughout the entire community.
I come from a village that lost a number of people who were members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They were killed by IRA terrorists. I knew them. I knew their

families. I know the effect that such loss has on an entire community, and I know how deep a residue it leaves on both sides—not only deep hurt, but a sense of guilt, which must be dealt with too.
I respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone by saying that if the new agreement is passed, as it will be on 22 May, it will be followed by an election, and it will then start to operate. Those are the technical elements of the agreement, but what are its essence and ethos? For the first time, what are now two communities in the north of Ireland will, we hope, start to work with a unity of purpose that will allow us to bind the wounds and to deal with the scars, to start the process of accommodation and to start the process—if I may use the term without sounding banal—of forgiveness, because that is what it will have to be.
We must start the process of restoring self-respect to everyone in the north of Ireland. That is one of the things that is at stake, especially in relation to what we have been discussing today. I could almost hear the sound of the post-colonial bugle in the speech made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone—I could hear the emotion in it; but I suggest to him that there should be no feeling of triumphalism on either side. There should be no feeling of losing or winning in relation to this issue. There should be no feeling of getting one over the other fellow, or one community getting something other than what is agreed by the other community. I believe that, very quickly, once that approach starts to operate, it will solve the problems of policing, as it will solve the political problems, the problems of instability, the problems of bigotry and the problems of hatred—the problems whose roots are so deeply embedded in our entire community.
Good Friday and the week leading up to it were among the most remarkable days of my life, because there was a sense of something happening which was good and would never be lost. Participation in the Bill's passage has also been good for all of us, because when we look into the future, we realise some of the challenges that we must face. I look forward to facing those challenges alongside the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and all his honourable colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I look forward to facing up to the problems that we must deal with, binding the wounds that we have to bind and creating the self-respect for everyone that we must create as a priority.
Political leadership in Northern Ireland will be crucial. It is my belief that, when the agreement is implemented and the assembly is set up, the assembly will come of age when those in it agree to assume full responsibility for the process of policing and justice, because that goes to the heart of any society—agreeing how it will live. That is the primary responsibility that any political authority should seek.
That will not happen quickly and it will not happen without many problems—time will be of the essence in binding the wounds and bridging the gaps—but the assembly will have come of age when, in effect, the people of the north of Ireland, from all sides, together, assume responsibility for that crucial part of their lives.
I have spent 18 years as a spokesman on policing and justice, which I have found a fairly difficult area due to the divisions, tensions and aberrations of attitude in both communities, but I hope that there is one thing I never lost: the belief that, somehow or another, through time,


by using our abilities, through whatever grace is given to us, we would be able to start together; Unionist, nationalist, republican, loyalist, Catholic, Protestant—call it what you like; one word will do me, people—in the north of Ireland, to solve these problems.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone made a very proper and poignant reference to the fund for policemen who had been injured physically or mentally, and their families, because they have suffered greatly too. I want to be associated with those remarks. I want it to be known that I believe that it is right that those people should receive recognition and get whatever comfort they can be given. It is stark, but I believe that the greatest tribute that we can pay to all those who died—ordinary people, policemen, soldiers or whoever—in the past 25 years of barbarism is together to start to bind those wounds, and by binding them, solve these problems once and for all.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to express a different point of view—one that will not surprise the House.
I stood in the European Parliament on Wednesday 29 April and I saw the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic sitting together. I have heard some very good and rightful tributes to the Royal Ulster Constabulary, but one question is uppermost in the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the agreement, those who have been amenable to the law for some of the murders of the 270-odd police officers and others who have died will be out on the streets in 24 months; and yet one police officer was murdered in the south of Ireland and the amnesty will not affect the man who murdered him. He stays—rightly, in my opinion—behind bars. I want to say on behalf of those who cannot speak—the 270 police officers: is the agony that their loved ones went through any different from the agony of that one wife in the south of Ireland? Some say that there are no winners, but there are winners in regard to that matter. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that it goes very deep, but we cannot deal with the wounds except by facing up to them realistically.
The hon. Gentleman should not be too sure about 22 May. When the Prime Minister was in our country he had a conversation with various people. Everyone knows that Northern Ireland is a closely related society. He was worried about his opinion polls, and he mentioned figures that did not bear out what his opinion polls were telling him about 22 May. People should not think that ordinary Unionists in Northern Ireland will be bribed, bullied or attacked into not doing what they know in their hearts they should do.
Time will tell, but one thing is certain: the majority of the Unionist population will not be voting yes in the referendum. We shall see whether all parties stand on the same platform. We shall see how far there is a consensus, with a majority of one side of the community agreeing with a majority of the other side. The agreement departs from that principle because it makes it clear that if at any time 50 per cent. plus one—not the majority of each part of the population—say that Ulster should go into a united Ireland, the Governments of both countries will see to it that that takes place. The House should recognise that.
We are told in speeches that there are no winners, then we listen to what Gerry Adams says. Some members of the party to which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh belongs are saying entirely different things—not what we have heard in the House today about the RUC, but about its destruction. They do not want a reconstructed RUC; they want a new police force in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland must consider that.
All over Northern Ireland there are sorrowing hearts. There is no difference between the sorrow of a Protestant mother and that of a Roman Catholic mother. There is no difference in the heart's agony. I have been in the homes of both communities, and I know what I am speaking of. I have perhaps attended more funerals in both communities than any other person. I know how they feel.
The House must not think that the Bill will serve as a magic wand and change the entire situation. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) knows how divided his party is on the issue and how the majority of the official Unionist Members of Parliament feel about it. Elected representatives know the feeling of their community and they know the feeling that motivates that community.
As I said on Second Reading, I do not believe that the Bill was brought before the House so quickly just because the Government were anxious to deal with it. The arrangement was a sop to republicans. I reminded myself of what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said in his speech on Second Reading, when we discussed the oath that the police take to Her Majesty the Queen, which the Bill will do away with. He said:
I welcome the change in the affirmation or oath, although I do not believe that it will make any fundamental difference to the problem."— [Official Report, 15 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 57.]
There is reality. Other people think that if they remove this, that and the other, they will have solved the problem. They will have done nothing of the sort. The solution will be accomplished only when all men are equal under the law and all are equally subject to the law. The agreement deviates fundamentally from that principle.
As I said to the Prime Minister on one occasion, there was a terrible tragedy in Scotland. Young people were mown down by a gunman. There was heartbreak and heartache. What happened? The previous Government, and the Government formed by the right hon. Gentleman when they came to power, decided to take the licensed guns from everyone. That legislation went through the House and those who held on to their guns would get a maximum penalty of 10 years in gaol.
We have arsenals of arms—not licensed guns, but guns that have done some of the most horrendous murders, brought tears to the widows and orphans, split families, destroyed society, and spread grief and harm. Yes, those guns are held by both sides of the community, yet the Government do not say, "Bring in those guns. Let them all be taken in." The policy of the talks was that their surrender must be a mutual process: those who held murder weapons must mutually agree to hand them in. That day will never dawn.
I have heard people say that the ghosts of the past haunt us, but it is not the ghosts of the past that haunt the people of Northern Ireland tonight. What haunts them tonight is the reality of the present and the future, when gunmen will be in the streets and have access to those arsenals of


arms and be ready to use them if they do not get their way, as they have in the past. That is what worries the people of Northern Ireland, and the Bill does not deal with it. People here do not want to discuss the matter, but it hangs as a shadow over the future of my Province. Such matters cannot be swept under the carpet; they must be faced.
There is unity on one part of the Bill, as I mentioned, and I am glad of that, but much of the rest of the Bill is a sop to republican thinking. We could have waited until the commission was in place, but the tide of time will run on to 22 May and beyond. We shall see what is in the minds and the hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. No £3 million will be spent by the ordinary people in Northern Ireland on the referendum. That will be Government money. No special money will be set aside by so-called business interests to promote their attitude among the people. The ordinary man in Ulster will do his duty and his voice will be heard. I hope that the House will listen to it because, time and again, it has not heeded the voices of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
I remind the House of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was supposed to heal the malady. The House may remember that hon. Members from the Unionist groupings left this place and fought an election—and we know the results of that election. The people spoke, but they were not listened to. The people gathered, and they were not listened to. Perhaps on this occasion they will be listened to. In heeding the voice of the people, we shall find the way forward for Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (PROTECTION OF TITLE) BILL

Ordered,

That the Chamber of Commerce (Protection of Title) Bill, now standing committed to a Committee of the whole House, be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Lighter Fuel Abuse

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of solvent abuse, particularly in relation to lighter fuel and butane gas, but I am sad to have to do so because of the tragic consequences of that abuse. The matter has been discussed many times in the House through oral questions, written questions and early-day motions.
Death is always traumatic, but the needless and tragic death of a young person who seemed to have the prospect of a bright future leaves us with a sense of disbelief and despair. Chantelle Bleau died on 1 December 1997 at the age of 16 after sniffing gas lighter fuel. Chantelle was studying for 11 GCSEs and was an active and bubbly teenager involved in drama and music. She had many friends, and was active in the community. Her loving family are devastated by the loss of their daughter and sister.
Mrs. Bleau said that they were a very close family, and that there were no symptoms or signs of what Chantelle was doing. She said:
I just don't know why she did it. I think some kids experiment with drugs and get away with it. But Chantelle hasn't, she has paid with her life.
The sad irony is that Chantelle was successful in gaining a part in an anti-drugs play called "Deadly Deals", which toured local schools raising drugs awareness issues.
Chantelle's parents and her community, in their grief, have vowed to do what they can to prevent a similar tragedy from happening to other families. They have set up a memorial fund designed to raise the awareness of teenagers and parents to the dangers of inhaling toxic solvents and gases. They hope to do that by establishing a resource centre to provide information about the dangers and effects of gas inhalation; by promoting publicity campaigns targeting vulnerable groups; by providing and training a team that will raise awareness in schools and youth clubs; and by establishing a support group for families that are affected by solvent abuse.
I pay tribute to all who have participated in the fund, particularly Yvonne Hutchinson, the fund co-ordinator, and members of the Abundant Life Centre church. I also commend our local newspaper, the Telegraph and Argus, which, through its reporter Nick Oldham, has done sterling work in raising the issues. I am pleased that the fund has received support from the entire community in our area.
If only Chantelle's death was an isolated incident, but sadly it is not. According to Re-Solv, a national organisation established in 1994 to prevent solvent abuse, volatile substance abuse kills more young people than any controlled drug. A Home Office report said that, between 1984 and 1996, more than three times as many young people under the age of 20 died from volatile substance abuse as from other illegal drugs. In Yorkshire alone, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths—up to 200 per cent.—in the past two years.
A direct comparison of deaths reveals that, between 1989 and 1995, Ecstasy killed 60 young people, while 660 young people died as a consequence of VSA. That is


a ratio of 11: 1. They are horrific figures. There was some hope that the figures were declining, but the figures for 1995 brought an abrupt halt to that decline. VSA killed 68 young people in that year—a 17 per cent. increase on the previous year. In one in five of those deaths, there was no previous history of abuse—but the victims did not get a second chance.
Another terrible tragedy was the death of Christopher Smith, who was only seven years old. He was found in the cab of an abandoned pick-up truck at a travellers' camp. There have been many more tragic deaths. Kevin Gregory, aged 15, died in March 1996 as a result of sniffing lighter fuel. Doctors smelled lighter fuel when he was taken to hospital, and his brother found a canister under his bed. Mark Campbell, who died in June 1996 aged 17, was found in a flat surrounded by canisters. He had been lonely and bullied. Glen Brooks, aged 15, was found dying on a playing field with canisters around him. We could recollect many such tragic cases this evening. Doctors are calling the epidemic "sudden sniffing death".
North Yorkshire county council trading standards officers took a 14-year-old girl to 20 shops. In 19, she was able to buy adhesives and gas—only one shop refused her. Trading standards officers up and down the country are calling for regulations that work. They have suggested regulations similar to those governing the sale of tobacco as a possible solution to the problem.
I applaud and congratulate Re-Solv, which works with the all-party group on solvent abuse—it was established because of the scale of the problem. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is in the Chamber. He was a director of Re-Solv before he came to the House, and I know that he wishes to contribute to the debate this evening.
Various solvents are the subject of abuse, including adhesives, aerosols, dry cleaning and de-greasing agents, fire extinguishers, paint, paint thinners, paint strippers and fuel gases. I shall concentrate on fuel gases, such as butane, which killed Chantelle. Butane is colourless and odourless. Manufacturers must find ways of increasing consumer awareness and education, and of notifying the public of the dangers of butane. Changing the nozzles on butane lighter refills might help, or perhaps an unpleasant-smelling substance could be added to the butane to discourage people from inhaling it.
We must ask the manufacturers to co-operate even further by issuing tougher warnings. If that co-operation is not forthcoming, the next step may be to ban lighter refuelling. There are many throwaway lighters on the market, so why do we need lighter refills that are so dangerous and so accessible to young people?
In raising this case tonight, it is my intention and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) and for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who have supported the fight, to add our weight to the campaign for greater awareness and education and tighter restrictions to prevent more young people from ending up like Chantelle. I am pleased to say that the fund is supported by the Leader of the House and by the drugs tsar, Keith Hellawell. I know that Ministers are considering introducing restrictions on the sale of solvents.
We must do something about this epidemic. We cannot allow cases such as Chantelle's to develop. We must ensure that there is greater education and awareness. The parents of Chantelle Bleau and the local community have tried to ensure that this tragedy does not happen to others. I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government will try to put the matter right. In light of the figures that have been cited, this problem must be addressed. Many young people are dying as a result of trying a substance that they do not believe to be harmful.
I am happy to have had the opportunity to raise the issue in this Adjournment debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn wishes to contribute, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Mr. David Hanson: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) for raising this important issue. I look forward with interest to hearing what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says in reply.
I simply seek to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South because, for the six years that I have been a Member of the House, I have been secretary of the all-party group on solvent abuse, and, before entering the House, I worked in a professional capacity helping with the reduction of solvent abuse. I remain concerned about the level, impact and effect of solvent abuse, and the need for a strategy to deal with the issue in future.
As my hon. Friend said, on average three young people will die each week from the abuse of solvents and volatile substances. Those products are available in the home and in the garage. They are products which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I buy for perfectly legitimate purposes—for painting the house or varnishing the floor, for hair spray or nail polish, and for correction fluid. In particular, my hon. Friend highlighted butane gas for cigarette lighters. Each of those products has a legitimate use, but each and every one can be used, particularly by young people because of their availability, leading, in some cases, to instant death.
Legislation is on the statute book dealing with solvent and volatile substance abuse. The Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, promoted by the then hon. Member for Tynemouth, Neville Trotter, restricts and regulates the sale of potentially abusable products to people under the age of 18 if the shopkeeper or retailer feels that those products are being bought for the purpose of abuse.
Greater education, enforcement and understanding of that legislation is needed so that all retailers are aware of it and have the support of trading standards officers in its random enforcement, and so that local authorities can ensure that the Act is understood and well known.
The recent drugs strategy of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is also helpful. That strategy covers solvent and volatile substance abuse. It is important that the need for the strategy is made known and understood, so that parents, teachers, youth workers and others in positions of responsibility for the well-being of young people understand the nature of such products, their potential dangers, and the reasons why young people abuse them.
In particular, we need to tackle the issue in schools and deal with the big problem of peer group pressure for seven to 12-year-olds whose friends encourage them to try


something. We must establish strategies to give young people the resilience to understand the problem and the products available, and to be able to resist the pressures and say no.
I re-emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South said about butane gas in particular. In reply to a parliamentary question of mine on 6 April, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), stated that, in the 10 years from 1985 to 1995, 465 people died as a result of butane gas lighter abuse alone. That does not take into account any other form of solvent abuse. Of those, 48 were under the age of 14, and 286 were under the age of 19.
I am aware that my hon. Friend is considering consulting on the practicality of introducing a limit of 16 years of age on the sale of gas lighter refills, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), said in a parliamentary written answer. I simply say that butane gas is the real killer in terms of solvent and volatile substance abuse. That is what is killing most young people at the moment, and killing them early and quickly. That consultation needs to take place soon. I hope that my hon. Friend will open it up, so that retailers, trading standards authorities and individuals such as parents can contribute and make the consultation valid.
The 465 deaths from abuse of butane gas lighters show that there is an argument to bring the sale of that product into line with the sale of cigarettes. Most people use butane gas lighters to light cigarettes. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 16, so I see no reason why it should not be the same for volatile substances.
My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) and for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) have taken a great interest in the subject. I shall ensure that the campaign continues to reduce the number of deaths. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South for allowing me to contribute.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department: (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) for seeking this important debate, and for his contribution and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) to this important issue.
I am sorry to hear of the death of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, Chantelle Bleau, from lighter fuel abuse. Her family and friends have my sympathy, and I ask my hon. Friend to convey that sympathy to them.
Volatile substance abuse, of which lighter fuel abuse is a part, is a phenomenon which has been with us for all too long. Although there were instances of abuse before, it was not until around 1970 that it began to grow to worrying levels. At that time, the police began to detect significant incidents of industrial chemical inhalation by young people, mainly in inner-city areas. Gradually, over a period of a few years, outbreaks of abuse emerged in other parts of the United Kingdom, without any apparent geographical pattern.
With no sign of the problem diminishing, and with mounting public concern, in 1985 Parliament passed the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act, to which my hon.

Friend the Member for Delyn referred. That Act did not make it an offence to possess abusable substances or to indulge in volatile substance abuse, but made it an offence for retailers to sell abusable substances to people under 18, knowing or believing that they were to be abused.
The Act therefore addressed and continues to address the position of the unscrupulous retailer. Many conscientious retailers have subsequently trained their staff and adopted policies—for example, by not displaying solvent-containing glues—aimed at reducing the opportunities for young people to lay their hands on these substances. The British Aerosol Manufacturers Association has provided advice to retailers. Such moves are welcome.
The Act did not make it an offence to possess or abuse the substances, because there was a fear of driving the abuse underground, making it more difficult to help if it were needed because substance abuse had produced an injury, possibly leading to death. Because of the wide range of substances which can be abused, and because of their widespread availability in the home and elsewhere, the Act was never going to be a cure-all. However, it played, and continues to play, a part in reducing access to the whole range of abusable products.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has not already read it, I commend to him the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs which was published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1995. The report, and the then Government's response to it, made it clear that wide-ranging action by a number of agencies, including the Government, was necessary.
For example, prevention and education initiatives were necessary to help divert young people away from abuse; training was necessary for professionals working with young people; and measures were needed to reduce accessibility to abusable substances. Those suggestions have all been followed through. The report drew special attention to the risks of gas lighter refills, to which I shall return later.
The Health Education Authority has run several publicity campaigns on behalf of the Government, specifically dealing with VSA and its potentially lethal effects. Information about the dangers of VSA is also included in all the HEA's general resources about drug misuse.
My hon. Friend may be aware that concern is sometimes expressed about referring to "gases, glues and aerosols" in drugs prevention literature. The suggestion is that that may signpost young people towards thinking of them as substances of abuse. Some aspects of solvent abuse are quite distinct from other forms of drug abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn said, the majority of substances abused are legitimate household products, which, if used as intended, pose no discernible risk. Nevertheless, volatile substances are abused to achieve a state of intoxication in much the same way as illegal drugs—sometimes with fatal consequences.
In developing our new anti-drugs strategy, which was published last week, we took account of VSA, and acknowledged that it will often be appropriate for drugs education and prevention activities to include information about volatile substances and other substances of abuse.
Surveys suggest that a small number of eight to 10-year-olds experiment, while 5 to 10 per cent. of teenagers may have engaged in volatile substance abuse


at some time. Those are frightening statistics. Given the early age at which such substances are sometimes first used, and the concern that sudden death sometimes occurs at first use, all schools should consider the place of education about the dangers of volatile substance abuse within their drug and health education programmes. As with other education about drugs, pupils need information and the skills to make healthy decisions and resist experimentation.
Drug education, including that about solvents and other legal substances such as alcohol and tobacco, is already a statutory requirement, as part of the national curriculum science order, at each of the four key stages. The guidance in the Department for Education and Employment's "Drug Prevention and Schools" circular, which was sent to all schools in 1995, was intended to encourage schools to approach the whole subject in a better and more targeted way. The DFEE plans to issue further guidance on drug education this year to support and underpin the Government's new anti-drugs strategy.
To ensure that national support is available for all professionals who need information about VSA, advice on training and guidance on best practice, the Department of Health funds the National Children's Bureau solvent misuse project. The project has responded to numerous requests for information, not only from professionals but from the media and those undertaking research into the issue.
To complement that information resource, the Department of Health also funds the solvent abuse resource group to lead the development of a network of local agencies that are active in finding solutions to the problems of VSA and in supporting the families of abusers. That is often neglected, but we must ensure that it is done. We understand that the resource group and the Chantelle Bleau memorial fund are now in contact with each other.
It is also important that purchasers should be aware what products can be abused, and the dangers of abusing them. To that end, last October, following consumer safety research carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry in consultation with the industry, new clear warning labels for abusable products have been developed. Manufacturers are voluntarily introducing the new warning label messages, which is to be welcomed. The message is clear and simple, and in line with other health advice on that subject: solvent abuse can kill instantly.
The ability of solvent abuse to kill instantly makes it a nasty problem. St. George's hospital medical school collects data on solvent-related deaths on the Government's behalf. Deaths peaked in 1990, when 151 people died. A steady decline to 58 deaths was recorded in 1994. However, in 1995, the last year for which figures

are available, the figure increased to 68. Although the overall downward trend is to be welcomed, it is no cause for complacency on the part of the Government or any other organisation with a role to play in responding to the problem. The high proportion of deaths that occur from abusing gas lighter refills—some 50 per cent.—is of particular concern.
The danger of gas lighter refills was identified in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It recommended that their size be limited to a maximum of 25 ml, to reduce the available dose and therefore the possibility of immediate death or injury. The DTI pursued that recommendation with the industry. I understand that, although several companies responded positively by voluntarily introducing a 25 ml gas lighter refill, others remained unconvinced that the smaller can would prove safer than the normal-sized 250 or 300 ml refills. Progress towards an industry-wide agreement to reduce the refills to a maximum size of 25 ml has also been hampered by anti-competitive considerations and practical difficulties.
I cannot hide my great disappointment, or that of the Government, that it has not been possible to make 25 ml the accepted maximum for gas lighter refills. That held out the prospect of an across-the-board step forward on this issue, but we must now accept that it is not to be—at least in the short term. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South proposed other methods, such as making the abusive substances smell unpleasant. Those possibilities need to be explored.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Delyn suggested that another means of reducing deaths from lighter refills would be to prohibit their sale to young people. That suggestion has also been made by various trading standards authorities and by Re-Solv, the Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance Abuse. We are grateful to them, and believe that such a measure must be considered. We therefore intend very shortly— hope in the next week or two—to consult on a proposal that sales of gas lighter refills to persons under the age of 16 be made illegal. It is important to make it harder for those potentially deadly products to get into the hands of young people.
Volatile substance abuse is a distinctive and difficult phenomenon to address. I hope that, from what I have said, my hon. Friends will understand the great seriousness with which the Government regard it. Misuse of gas lighter refills is one element—the most dangerous—as my hon. Friends' constituents know to their cost. They have my sympathy. Through the consultation exercise on which we are about to embark, we intend to assess the value of introducing a measure to tackle the specific dangers of gas lighter refills. I hope that my hon. Friends will support us in our search for a long-term, practical and effective solution to this problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Nine o'clock.